Yudof can leave now. A grossly overpaid and out of touch bureaucrat that couldn't engender loyalty in a dog let alone alumni.
UCs should be for California, not out of state students or out of state Presidents.

I sent the following email to Joe Simitian (state senator), Rich Gordon (state assembyman), Jerry Brown (on UC Board of Regents and father Pat Brown was instrumental in creating UC in its current form) and Gavin Newsom (also on UC Board of Regents):


I read in the Palo Alto weekly (Web Link that out-of-state admissions rates at UC are at a whopping 23%!! I think the UC administration is completely out of control. If our tax dollars are going to support UC, then their charter should be to teach California's kids. Admitting out-of-state students who pay higher tuition is just a short-term accounting trick that covers up their poor management and their outrageous administrator salaries. If you believe their logic, then how about they exclusively admit out-of-state students? Please use your powers as a member of the UC Regents to stop this travesty. Thank you!

Yudof shouldn't have reduced CA students' admits even a bit. Because of that, CA residents over-react over the reduction.
Of course, he should make more efforts to get more money from any resources available and to reduce his spending as much as possible, first.
If he doesn't change or slightly increase the number of CA students' admits, and say that the increased number of out-of-state students will pay part of CA students tuition, CA residents would not hate him at all.
This tactics is from a book of ancient Chinese philosophy.

1) Through taxes,Californians pay for the UC system to exist, whether or not we attend those schools. Since California tax dollars support the system, Californians should have the first right to attend UC schools. Taxing Californians to pay for the UC system to exist, and then admitting out-of-state students because they pay higher tuition seems like double-dipping to me.

2) My understanding is that tuition does not cover the full cost of educating a student even at expensive private universities. If that is the case at UC schools as well, then California taxpayers are still subsidizing the out-of-state students who pay higher tuition. This does not seem like a good use of California tax dollars to me.

3) Why not offer California students who might otherwise be waitlisted or denied a spot in their UC school of choice the chance to pay out-of-state tuition rates before offering those spots to out-of-state students?

The 10% cap sounds like a reasonable out-of-state enrollment to me. Admissions rates are immaterial as long as there are good statistics on acceptances. Looks like 2/3 of successful out-of-state applicants are using UC as their "safe" school, or maybe decide the premium tuition isn't worth paying. I can see problems if non-resident students work harder because they are paying more and take their studies seriously. They could demoralize the natives and monopolize the more difficult courses. Could that be the underlying complaint?

How many California residents earn degrees at out-of-state public universities? I for one.

This is being done throughout California's higher ed system - CSU and community colleges included - with a focus on recruiting Chinese kids paying full freight.
And while UC has academic standards to uphold, it's a virtual free-for-all at many CSUs and all the CCs - foreign kids who can barely speak or write English are hoisted upon professors who are under pressure to give them high marks to keep the money flowing.
It's all about money - even Yudof admits it.

Out-of-state students pay one year out-of-state tuition then become residents. The system is full of faults!

As a Cal alum, I am concerned that the UCs are well on their way to become private universities. The truly depressing statistic is that when I was an undergraduate in the mid '70s, state spending for the UCs was around 10% of the state budget and corrections was around 3%. Now we re at nearly 10% for corrections and 6% for the UCs. (see Web Link

Why hello there fellow C!
Although I have not verified what you say, I agree that the in-state and out-of-state systems are messed up. If you attend a college in a different state, you lose your CA residency. If you go to a local community college to regain it, you are charged out-of-state rates (which are surprisingly high, especially for a community college).

I also agree that a lot of people apply to UCs and CSUs as safety schools. Additionally, their admission rates are exceptionally skewed because it just takes the check of a box to apply to all of them instead of one. Given this, of course their in-state admission rates are low.

The way I see it, as a student, is that we are in an endless circle. Generalizing it, the teachers, students, faculty, and staff, all wish for more money in the education system (whether it be to lower tuition cost, prevent more pension cuts, etc.). The taxpayers and politicians want evidence that the education is succeeding before giving more money. The more that is cut, the less there will be to show. Repeat. Brown's tax-measure giving $2B or so to the schools? Please. That's a bit of what he shifted out of the fund to give to roads and bridges (essentially).

I have no idea how to fix the budget problem, but I don't have a problem with out-of-state and international students. "In that same period, system-wide undergraduate enrollment of California residents declined a half-percent: from 167,118 in the fall of 2010 to 166,265 in fall 2011." So, in other words, 853 (if I did my mental math correctly) fewer students attended a UC/CSU. Not a big deal.

While this article introduces a number of data points, such as the total cost of the UC system, and the number of undergrads--it fails to provide the crucial cost-to-educate/undergrad and cost-to-educate/grad student numbers--so that we can see what the real problem is--ballooning costs.

Underneath this ballooning costs there are some crucial numbers:

1) Number of Teaching Staff
2) Average Salaries for Teaching Staff
3) Hi-lo salary ranges
4) Pension costs
5) Non-teaching staffing employment
6) Salaries of non-teaching staff

and the another biggie--

7) Increasing facilities costs.

Since facilities costs are always carried "in another budget", it's difficult to track these expenditures, making higher education just another black hole into which public/private dollars disappear.

There is simply no way that these institutions should have the autonomy to determine that qualified California students should be denied access, while at the same time demanding tax dollars from the State. Clearly these institutions have become too large, and out-of-control of the people of California--for which they were created to serve.

We can thank people like Joe Simitian, and his fellow do-nothings in the State Legislature, for this situation. Reducing the scope, and authority, of the Administrators, as well as the size of the campuses, is about the only thing that we can do in the short term. In the long term, rethinking the role of on-site education, in a world of Internet-based knowledge delivery is the next step.

There are an endless supply of out of country students, especially from China with its huge population, eager to take UC slots -- especially UC Berkeley and UCLA.
As UC is a CA taxpayer-supported public university system, I really think in-state students should have a decent shot at the slots, which was the original intention of this sytem, afterall -- this is increasingly tough for those from competitive CA high schools.
The PRIORITY of the State of California should NOT be to educate out of country students. I don't know where the level of admissions should be set - of course, SOME international students are typical at any university and should be admitted. That is part of the normal course of things, and if they can charge 3X for that, fine, but the notion that the entire UC system (or top tier coveted campuses) should be handed over to international students on the basis they are wealthy is ridiculous.
Top administrator salaries, according to news reports I have read over the years, seem quite high and justification is needed.

Not only does Yudof say the UC's get more money this way, but also "Yudof told a gathering of the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce last month.
"It provides another form of diversity". By that logic, the UC's should be looking to have students from every state in the union and every country in the world. Never mind the charter that the UC's are primarily to serve CA students which are a very diverse group of people here. What kind of leader of the UC's dismisses the needs of CA students to have the chance to attend a UC? 40% out-of-state at UCLA? Shocking and sad. 15% out-of-state limit is OK with me, but more than that means we are not serving our own students here in CA. That "diversity" argument is silly.

"They" still haven't discovered UC Merced yet. Still 99% Californian.

Sorry but CA kids come first. China needs to come up with its own top notch universities. UCs are so very Asian. Where's the diversity? I taught plenty of "A" grade California Latino (born here) high school students. Didn't see them represented when moving my kid out of her UC dorm a week ago.

Wake up folks.

The business school at UCLA IS privatizing.

The people on this board need to understand that the Republicans don't want to pay the taxes to contribute to the support UC.
Ergo, the UCs will become essentially private.

This emotional handringing is worthless unless you are willing to tirelessly work to change our political culture. This is just a minor symptom of the direction of the entire country.

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 picture 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. (Harvard is now less costly than Cal.)

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.

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 Cal. senior management decisions are unacceptable: UC Board of Regents [email protected] and Calif. State Senator and Assemblymember.

I was wondering if the out of state tuition is covering the entire cost of the degree? Based on the Los Altos resident he does not think it is covering the entire cost and therefore, California taxpayers are subsidizing the cost.

One solution would be to increase the cost for foreign students.

UC a loss leader? If the hot-shot foreign student settles in California, there's a good chance of generating more tax dollars than the cost of the education. We've always been good at luring the intellectual capital of other countries. Odd that the bottom half of our own citizens haven't been emigrating, given the great free medical care, free education, employment benefits, and social services offered by all the other first world nations.

China recruits in Silicon Valley (for their brain power, educated here, to return there)
In order to have worldclass status, it is fine for universities to have a certain percentage of international students, but when you have California-taxpayer-funded public universities, with the purpose that high-achieving California students can get educated there at a semi-reasonable cost, I don't agree with throwing the doors wide open to wealthy foreigners -- the reality is there are an endless supply of those who would love to live here, if even for awhile.

Lots of misinformation floating around. One fact many are ignoring is that California taxpayers now cover only 10-20% of the cost of tuition for students at UCs. The state covers just under 50% at the CSUs (down from 80+% not that long ago), so neither are truly "state" schools. It would be more accurate to say they are "state-affiliated," the terms used in states where the university systems receive less than majority funding. If the state won't cover the cost of educating our students, money has to come from somewhere. One of those places is full-paying students from out of state.

Another point that should be emphasized is the UCs actually increased in-state student admissions by 10% over the past 5 years, in spite of the significant cuts in state allocations.

Are you aware that the state allocation for the CSUs and UCs has decreased 33% over the last few years alone? That tuition in the UCs is only slightly above the national average, even though we are in a high cost-of-living state, and that CSU tuition is in the lowest quartile?

Once again, in the interest of full-disclosure I'm a former Mid-Town resident and now an out-of-stater myslef (since getting my undergrad degree at SJS in the early 70s).

California faces real financial challenges. Any subsidy of out-of-staters or back door way for them ("us") to gain in state residency should be stopped.


I'm sure the real cost of tuition and room and board can be quantified campus-by-campus at the UC and CSU systems.


What ever it is---charge it & add a 10% surcharge to help offset the state's financial woes.

You taxpayers owe nothing to out-of-staters who want to enjoy the benefits of a fine undergraduate and graduate school ed.

My folks paid taxes in PA and CA from 1957 to 1977 and my $77 a semester "fees" at SJS in the late 60s and early 70s were part of what they "paid" for.

I attended a public university in the midwest from 1967 to 1969 and when the out of state tuition become more than I could justify I returned to CA. Maybe some of this crop of out-of-staters will do likewise.

Of course you may want to offer limited state tax credits for 2-4 years to those out-of-staters who choose to stay in the state and are EMPLOYED. I suppose many may decide to stay.

There will always be a good crop of out-of-staters to add diversity to the various campuses, owing to either the ability of said students to get scholarships/fellowships or because of well-heeled parents.

Heaven forbid though that the UC or CSU system ever turn into an SC!

It is a shame though that only 1% of the students at UC/Merced are out-of-staters. Maybe they could not find Merced on the map!

While I will never return to PA or CA to live, I value the education I got at PAUSD and then SJS as true gifts in my life.

When I went to Berkeley for grad school in the late 90s, I had to compete with foreign students who rented single family homes complete with house maids. They had plenty of cash as well. They almost always secured fee waivers for being TAs and readers. It seemed backward then, it's no longer surprising now. To stay afloat, I worked nights and remained in the Army Reserve. The year I graduated, I was mobilized and sent to Iraq. Some of them got tenure track US jobs while I was sucking up sand. Others took their education back to their home countries. That's life. Ain't it grand?

UC dad and alum, a resident of the Barron Park writes: "Sorry but CA kids come first. China needs to come up with its own top notch universities. UCs are so very Asian. Where's the diversity? I taught plenty of "A" grade California Latino (born here) high school students. Didn't see them represented when moving my kid out of her UC dorm a week ago."

All those "very Asian" students could be Americans - you don't know unless you asked their passports. Just like when you see Caucasian faces - how do you know they all aren't citizens from foreign countries?

Paging Prop 13: Your chickens have come home to roost.

Palo Alto mom of Duveneck/St Francis - Prop 13, addresses property taxes. Property taxes go to fund K-12 public schools, community colleges, and county functions like the sheriff, county medical, etc. - not the UC or CSU college system.

You should Yudoff why the number of execs making more than $214,000 increased during the last recession, from 2,996 execs to 3,184 execs, when he also raised tuition: weblink Web Link

and you can ask Yudoff about the $6 billion spent on "miscellanous services" from 2005 - 2011 in the UC President's office weblink: Web Link

There are many other pay abuse scandals that have come to light over past decade that leads one to think that there is a spending problem in the UC system that Yudoff is not up to the task of cleaning up.

Do California students who really want to attend a UC have the option to pay the "out of state" rate? And how is that any different from admitting out of state students just because they pay more? Buying your way into college, what else is new?

I have the same questions that LifesPriceTags brought up.
The UC system admits more out-of-students because of money.
If CA students pay more, can they get in easier?
I can pay more for my students, not through tax.

Moreover, if students pay more, can they have priority to register the classes, like in "Fast Lane" in Great America?

I think everyone needs to take a closer look at the facts:

1. System-wide, the non-resident undergraduate population of the UCs is 8.4% - Much small than UVA, UNC Chapel Hill and Michigan
2. All CA students who were UC qualified were offered admissions to at least one UC
3. Non-resident students (minus the athletes) who are accepted at Berkeley, UCLA and UCSD have higher GPAs and Test scores than the average in-state accepted student
4. Non-resident students not only bring needed cash,they add diversity of culture and thought important in higher education.

We've always had international students at California universities - there has not been a deficiency in culture. The state itself is diverse, too. This isn't Iowa, you know. There is no necessity to overload on high-paying international students except to keep bloated budgets at the same level. Whether they are given a kind eye (as full-pay students are at some private universities) is a good question.
There have been concerns about SAT administration overseas (and you know universities look carefully at SAT scores) and the actual veracity of applications to American universities from recent applicants. There are coaches who virtually complete the applicants' applications.
Grad schools - from what I've read in hundreds of posts on College Confidential web forums - fly in applicants to see if their English is workable (to be able to attend grad schoo, do the work) and reports are that often the person in the flesh doesn't match the (supposed) test scores, essays, app assertions.
I think there was a long era when UC and CSU tuition/fees weren't raised and suddenly, in conjunction with state legislature overspending, we have a crisis on our hands and people object to raising instate tuition even a bit. Try paying private university tuition and you'll be grateful for public universities.

The highest priority of UC and the CS must be the California youth, that was the principle and the reason for their existence. The so called "diversity" and cash that brings the out of State student is not enough to justify their inclusion in our public schools financed and created by the Californian taxpayers.

Students that come from abroad, specially from Asian countries that barely are able to muster a few words in spoken or written English show up with their inflated GPAs and tons of money taking over the spaces that belongs to a Californian kid. It should stop.

We have ineptitude all over, from the head honchos running the Public Universities System( did you read a few months back in the Mercury about Mr Yudof glowingly announcing the opennig of a new University of California Campus in China, within the next 10 years? )
Mr Yudof wants to branch out, just like he was running a Mcdonalds, with his cries of not enough funding nowadays,somehow he still wants to spend money that is not there. Meanwhile the in state student tuition keeps going and going and going up, a good excuse for him to bring in out of state students " because they pay tons of money and end up subsidizing the in state students" , that is just an insult to all California Taxpayers, when in reality is the State Taxpayer that subsidizes the out of State student, because the "tons of money" they supposedly pay , is just not enough to cover the cost of their education here.

We have ineptitude in the Governor himself, he has shown he doesnot have the cajones to put the Public Employees Pension and Benefits on the Ballot, as Mayor Chuck Reed of San Jose did; Governor Brown cowardly deflected his responsiblility and stayed loyal to his Public Employees Unions by preserving the status quo that sends bilions and billions of dollars annually to cover their bloated Pension and Benefits expenses that otherwise would go to Public Education and other State services,and instead is playing a modern Pontius Pilate, by placing a new Tax on the November Ballot that will benefit Public Education, and let the voters decide, but Jerry Pontius Pilate Brown has issued a warning to the Califoria Taxpayers: if you don't pass the new Tax you will be responsible for a new round of cuts of funding for Public Education.

Several reasons why the Public Education System is in the actual state; wheather is mismanagement, loss of direction, wrong policies, bloated salaries, of the present and past UC presidents, Chancellors, Administrators as well as California Governors without true leadership skills, without vision for a better and brighter future for California. Looks like they are happy just creating a workforce for Mcdonalds and their likes. Or is that they think that the real smart people only can come from abroad???

I wish the best of luck to the citizens of San Jose for their support of their Mayor Mr. Reed, overwhelmingly voted yes on his ballot measure to change the Pension and Benefits of all the City Employee Public Unions, as expected the Unions filed a suit the next day, is going to be a long fight, but I am confident the Mayor and the City will prevail.. Now that is LEADERSHIP !! take note Mr Jerry Pontius Pilate Brown.

For a fellow that did an internship with Mother Theresa, we were expecting better from you Mr Brown. Ha! who I am kidding.

"Actual enrollment rates of non-Californians are considerably lower than their admission rates........", and the higher tuition paid by non-residents subsidizes California students, Yudof said.....

This statement is also backed up by "Parent" statement #1 System-wide, the non-resident undergraduate population of the UCs is 8.4% -..

Wondering what is the percentage of UC enrollment are CA high school graduated? Does anyone know where to find this statistics?

The real issue here is that the overall numbers of students are increasing while staffing levels are decreasing or on hold.

The result is that standards are slipping at the UC's.

Its very sad. California was the educational powerhouse of the world. So many top universities here. Now this is eroding slowly, drip drip.

We pay a fortune to live in Palo Alto to get out kids to have a shot at the UC's and now their chances are much slimmer.

As for the "very Asian" comment. Its simply true.
The UC system has been hung by its own liberal petard.

The idea of educating Californians to a high degree instead became a magnet for international immigrants to do whatever it took to jam their households into the good school districts to get a good education for the cheapest price.

[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

I was at UCSB for graduation a week or two ago. I witnessed the engineering and life sciences graduations (probably the two departments most stereotyped for being all Asian, especially the computer science part of the engineering department). Many races were represented. Sure, Asians did make up a larger percentage of the students in engineering, but there were Caucasians and Hispanics too. I'll admit that there were few African Americans, however. Also, consider that there are Asian minorities too. Are they, instead of being both a minority and Asian, just classified as Asian?
"The UC is now a system to educate Chinese and Koreans, who will go wherever the jobs are, including back to China taking the subsidized education with them." That's not just Asians. Indians too, and others. Data shows that the children of immigrants are returning to their home countries with US degrees. Is it surprising that in this job climate people travel elsewhere? No. It's just more likely because they probably speak the language there so it's easier for them to move.
Oh, and in case you're wondering, I'm not Asian.

University of California Berkeley tuition denies access affordability to Californians. University access, affordability is farther and farther out of reach. University of California Berkeley Chancellor Birgeneau, Provost Breslauer leave an indelible mark on access and affordability. Self absorbed, arrogant Chancellor Provost are outspoken on elite public Cal. ‘charging Californians much higher’ tuition. Number 1 ranked Harvard is now less costly. Cal. tuition is rising faster than costs at other universities. The ‘charge Californians higher’ tuition makes Cal. the most expensive public university!

Birgeneau ($450,000 salary) Breslauer ($306,000 salary) like to blame the politicians, since they stopped giving them every dollar expected. The ‘charge Californians more’ tuition skyrocketed fees by an average 14% per year from 2006 to 2011-12 academic years. If Birgeneau Breslauer had allowed fees to rise at the same rate of inflation over the past 10 years they would still be in reach of most middle income students. Disparities in higher education defeat the promise of equality of opportunity. An unacceptable legacy for students, parents, politicians!

Additional funding should sunset. The economic downturn is devastating California. Simply asking Californians for more money to fund inept Cal. leadership, old expensive higher education models and support burdensome salaries, bonuses, and pensions is not the answer.

UC Berkeley is to maximize access to the widest number of Californians at a reasonable cost: mission of diversity and equality of opportunity. Birgeneau’s Breslauer’s ‘charge Californians higher’ tuition denies middle income Californians the transformative value of Cal’s higher education.

Opinions? UC Board of Regents [email protected] Calif. State Senators, Assembly members