http://paloaltoonline.com/print/story/print/2012/05/04/uc-president-non-resident-admissions-help-pay-the-bills


Palo Alto Weekly

News - May 4, 2012

UC President: Non-resident admissions help pay the bills

State must re-invest in system that's the 'seed corn' for economic growth, Yudof says

by Chris Kenrick

Non-resident students squeezing out residents is not the University of California's biggest problem, the system's president said Thursday.

Rather it is lawmakers and taxpayers who are unwilling to expand the 220,000-student system to keep pace with the growth of California, UC President Mark Yudof told a Palo Alto audience May 3.

In a speech to a Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce breakfast gathering, Yudof passionately asserted that state cuts to UC particularly severe over the past five years threaten to undermine the education engine that represents the "seed corn" for future innovation and economic growth in the state.

Sacramento's contribution to the UC system's $22.5 billion budget has dwindled to something over $2 billion, Yudof said. The state covers 60 percent less per student than it did 20 years ago and, for the first time, UC students now pay more than taxpayers.

The bulk of UC revenues comes from other sources, mainly those for hospitals and physicians in the system's five medical centers.

In part to beef up the budget, UC's admission rate for non-resident students indeed has climbed, and now represents about 7 percent of undergraduate admission, Yudof said. There's a current system-wide "cap of 10 percent" on non-resident undergraduate admissions, and Yudof predicted such students will represent about 7.5 percent for the coming year.

"I don't think that's outrageous," he said.

"It provides another form of diversity and we also charge them a ton of money. If we charge them $30,000, I can take some of that and move it over to pay for the Californians the legislature isn't paying for."

He said UC has tried not to allow the growing non-resident enrollment to reduce the number of slots for California students.

"By and large, we've tried to increase the enrollment to take care of that," he said.

Yudof noted the 7 percent non-resident undergraduate admission rate is a system-wide average that could translate to 3 percent on one campus and 12 percent on another.

"Certainly Berkeley is more impacted," he said. "People around the world are more likely to have heard of Berkeley.

"I'd be happy to reduce it well, not happy, because they add to the environment but we could reduce it if the state of California were willing to pay a fair share.

"If not, it's higher tuition, more non-residents and even worse alternatives that we're not competitive for the best professors, not as a good a research university, it takes more time to graduate, the library is closed earlier.

"We face hard alternatives and, the fact is, nobody wants to pay. When you get to the question of taxation and tuition, people get off our train."

Yudof rejected a suggestion that UC de-emphasize state funding and refocus on beefing up other sources.

"Taxpayers built this place, and I'm reluctant to call it quits," he said. "We're a consummately California institution."

Moreover, the $2 billion-plus from the state funds core liberal-arts programs in subjects like Spanish, English, fine arts and education that cannot be subsidized by other grants targeted to specific research or medical care, he said.

Yudof said he's making his way around California on a "UC myth-busting" speaking tour.

"The most prevalent myth is that tuition has gone up because the cost of producing a degree has gone up," he said.

"That sounds like common sense, but it's not true."

The cost of producing a credit-hour at UC actually has dropped 15 percent since the 1990s, "but the price to students has gone up geometrically because we have a partner who's turned out to be unreliable, the state of California."

Though the UC tuition "sticker price" is $11,300, the average tuition paid is only $4,400 because of needs-based financial aid, Yudof said.

"Another myth is that high tuition hurts the poor," he said, citing an array of grant and loan programs to help low-income students.

"The people who are hurt are the middle-class people," who do not qualify for need-based programs. "The higher tuition goes, the rougher it is for the middle class."

Staff Writer Chris Kenrick can be emailed at ckenrick@paweekly.com.

Comments

Posted by Is-The-Cost-Of-Higher-Education-Worth-It?, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 4, 2012 at 11:07 am

> Though the UC tuition "sticker price" is $11,300,
> the average tuition paid is only $4,400 because
> of needs-based financial aid, Yudof said.

It would be interesting to see how this "sticker price" was calculated, as intuition suggests that the cost to educate any student is a lot more. Of course, undergraduate education costs must be separated from graduate education costs, but $11K/student just seems too, too, small.

No matter what the costs are today, it's clear that the cost of "higher education" has not become hitched so a runaway star, and will only grow, grow, grow, in the future. Leaving us with an unsustainable, and unaffordable, future for most families. This is particularly worrisome since that time that students being able to work their way through college seems to no longer be an option—requiring this massive debt ($1T to date) that might end up requiring many students to simply decide that government bailouts are the only way that they can survive—demanding some sort of government intervention in the future. Not only will such a government intervention be borne by the taxpayers, it will likely create a mindset in the American people that you can sign any contract, and then walk away from it if things don't work out like they planned. This does not bode well for the future.

Rethinking the educational delivery model, to use more distance learning and digital technology to reduce the size, and cost, of teach staff is likely to be the only way out of this morass.


Posted by Capt Stran, a resident of Green Acres
on May 4, 2012 at 11:25 am

"Is-The-Cost-Of-Higher-Education-Worth-It?"

Good question. At the individual level, look at unemployment statistics for HS rads and college grads. The answer is obvious.

At the larger level, look what happens when other countries 'out-educate' their kids. Ours get left behind, America gets left behind.

We must invest in the education of our youth. The (almost) half million teachers fired in this recession should be rehired immediately.

Re-build America. Start with the low hanging fruit - jobs. Employ Americans to rebuild the infrastructure and education systems so we can compete in the future.

Do not listen to the austerity-mongers. Austerity is failing Europe, don't let is fail America.


Posted by Jeff, a resident of Downtown North
on May 4, 2012 at 11:38 am

Remember two or three years ago the comments made about administrators pay ... "Even as school districts are being forced to lay off school teachers, cut back on schoolbooks and increase their class sizes, the UC hired a new president at over $900,000 per year plus many high-end perks. This is twice as much as the UC's last president..." - Web Link

And comments about conflict of interest ... Web Link

I love the UC's but I'm not so sure about the leadership.


Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 4, 2012 at 12:07 pm

The population of California is escalating. It is ridiculous to think that there are less UC places for a higher student population.
It should be the other way round, there should be a growing number of places to enable every qualified student the chance of a place.


Posted by anonymous, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on May 4, 2012 at 1:21 pm

Blaming the taxpayer gets tiresome. How about auditing this enormous UC "system."
Some of us have not used the UCs yet I value this asset for our state taxpayer families and believe in-state should have priority over OOS, and especially out of country admissions. Perhaps OOS and out of country admissions process could be staggered to occur just after instate.
Yes, Berkeley has name-brand attraction around the world.
Taxpayers are supposedly unwilling to expand the "system" -- well, what if out of country ONLY wants Berkeley - what are we going to do, make it an even more giant university?!


Posted by Milan Moravec, a resident of Greendell/Walnut Grove
on May 4, 2012 at 3:18 pm

A shocking picture of inept public University of California Berkeley senior management: fall admit rate for Californians drops to record low 18%. There was a 43 percent jump in the number of affluent foreign and affluent out-of-state students accepted. The more non-Californians admitted, the fewer qualified Californians can be.

In spite of eligibility Cal. Chancellor Birgeneau ($450.000 salary), Provost Breslauer ($306,000 salary) shed thousands of instate applicants. Qualified instate applicants to public Cal. are replaced by a $50,600 payment from born abroad affluent foreign and affluent out of state students. And, Birgeneau subsidizes affluent foreign and affluent out of state tuition in the guise of diversity while he doubles instate tuition/fees.

Birgeneau/Breslauer accept affluent $50,600 foreign students that displace qualified instate Californians (When depreciation of tax funded assets are included (as they should be), out of state and foreign tuition is more than $100,000 and does NOT subsidize instate tuition). Going to Cal. is now more expensive for instate students than Harvard, Yale.

With the recommendations of Cal. Chancellor Birgeneau ($450,000 salary), Provost George Breslauer ($306,000 salary) allowed campus police to use excessive force - rammed baton jabs - on students protesting Birgeneau's doubling of instate tuition. Resignation of Birgeneau is necessary, but not sufficient, sack Breslauer.

Send a forceful message that these Cal. senior management decisions simply aren't acceptable: UC Board of Regents marsha.kelman@ucop.edu and Calif. State Senator and Assemblymember.


Posted by Donner Party descendant, a resident of Downtown North
on May 4, 2012 at 8:55 pm

California kids first, out of state second, and foreign citizens third.I have been a Californian all my life and a California taxpayer for most of my life. Californians first at UCs. Imagine pushing aside a first generation college student- who is a Californian- in favor of a French teen. That's wrong.


Posted by Is-The-Cost-Of-Higher-Education-Worth-It?, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 5, 2012 at 11:46 am

> We must invest in the education of our youth.
>The (almost) half million teachers fired in this
> recession should be rehired immediately.

"Investing in education" has become a ruse for spending money on labor unions and elaborate facilities that don't really aid the education process. Some Stanford Medical School professors are beginning to see that this is true, and are suggesting using the lessons learned from the Kahn Academy to reduce the cost of education, and to increase the quality of the "product":

Web Link

Rehiring laid off teachers is futile, and a waste of money—since they are not really teaching very much, as is. Better to "invest" in distance learning, and begin developing the future, rather than spinning our wheels in the past.


Posted by registered user, Paul Losch, a resident of Community Center
on May 6, 2012 at 12:42 pm

UC is in reactive mode.

At the undergrad level, what is the Mission for the campuses? My understanding is that it is primarily to educate California students. (I must admit that I was a Texas high school student when I was admitted to UC Davis, but my family was moving back to California my senior year of high schol.)

At the graduate and professional school level, there is something else altogether. UC wants to attract the best minds for research, teaching, and professional vocations, regardless of geographic origin. At the post-undergraduate level, it needs an unfettered mandate to compete with other top universities, and not find itself outflanked by private universities that do not have to deal with the circumstances a state university system faces.

The money problem UC faces is huge. My point of view is that if it has not done so already, it needs to dilineate its missions for its undergrads and for those in post-grad programs. If those missions are clearly defined, UC needs a better PR agency to help the public understand them.


Posted by Milan Moravec, a resident of College Terrace
on May 9, 2012 at 10:07 pm

There was a 43 percent jump in the number of affluent foreign and affluent out-of-state students accepted by University of California Berkeley. The more non-Californians admitted, the fewer qualified Californians can be. Fall admit rate for Californians drops to record low 18%. Another shocking example of inept Cal. senior management.

In spite of eligibility Cal. Chancellor Birgeneau ($450.000 salary), Provost Breslauer ($306,000 salary) shed thousands of instate applicants. Qualified instate applicants to public Cal. are replaced by a $50,600 payment from born abroad affluent foreign and affluent out of state students. And, Birgeneau subsidizes affluent foreign and affluent out of state tuition in the guise of diversity while he doubles instate tuition/fees.

Birgeneau/Breslauer accept affluent $50,600 foreign students that displace qualified instate Californians (When depreciation of tax funded assets are included (as they should be), out of state and foreign tuition is more than $100,000 and does NOT subsidize instate tuition). Going to Cal. is now more expensive for instate students than Harvard, Yale.

With the recommendations of Cal. Chancellor Birgeneau ($450,000 salary), Provost George Breslauer ($306,000 salary) allowed campus police to use excessive force - rammed baton jabs - on students protesting Birgeneau's doubling of instate tuition. Birgeneau resigned: sack Provost Breslauer.

Send a forceful message that these Cal. senior management decisions simply aren't acceptable: UC Board of Regents marsha.kelman@ucop.edu and Calif. State Senator and Assemblymember.


Posted by registered user, Perspective, a resident of Midtown
on May 10, 2012 at 9:40 am

It is appalling that our children of equal qualifications are being dumped in favor of higher paying out of State or Country students. Appalling.

On the other hand...why are there so many classes being taught with no "economic" value to the taxpayers who subsidize them? In other words, no return on investment, per se, through those who take them being able to actually find a decent paying job to pay back Mom and Dad or loans after taking them? A time to be practical is when you are spending other people's money, but that hasn't been the case in our State University system, as a perusal of course offerings reveals.

On the 3rd hand, for those of us with 3 hands, as an aside for the "why" of rising university costs beyond the simple-minded "classes we don't need" view, there is a fascinating read by Thomas Sowell Web Link Click on the "Economics of College" parts 1, 2, and 3 for a great understanding of how college has become so expensive.

Enjoy.