Campus
UC Increases Offers of Admission to Out-of-State Students
4 percent increase raises concerns
By Ana Nicasio
City on a Hill Press
Published May 1, 2011 at 9:07 pm

Michael McCawley, associate director of admissions at UCSC, said the money that comes in from out-of-state students can enhance academic advising or provide more sections. Photo by Nick Paris.

The University of California’s freshman class could look very different next year.

The UC increased the percentage of out-of-state student admission from 14 percent in 2010 to 18 percent for the freshman class of 2011. At UC Santa Cruz, admission was offered to 776 out-of-state students, up from 691 in 2010. Out-of-state students pay an additional $23,000 on top of in-state fees, bringing the average total cost of attendance for non-California residents to almost $55,000.

To mitigate the effects of funding cuts the state of California has made to the UC, the university has looked at alternative sources of revenue. The UC Commission on the Future — a group that discusses large-scale planning for the university system — recommended in November that the UC increase out-of-state enrollment for the additional revenue generated through higher student fees.

Non-California residents are ineligible for state-funded aid programs such as Cal Grants, and must rely instead on federal aid options like direct loans. Out-of-state students can apply for California residency after a year of attending a California university. However, the process requires them to jump many hurdles. For instance, they must demonstrate financial independence if they do not have a parent or legal guardian who is a California resident. This condition all but ensures they will continue to pay out-of-state fees to the UC.

Revenue brought in by out-of-state students who do not achieve California residency can help preserve the quality of a UC education, said Michael McCawley, associate director of admissions at UCSC.

“The money that comes in from out-of-state students can go to enhancing academic advising or providing more sections,” McCawley said.

Some are concerned that the increase in out-of-state student admissions could potentially displace California resident admissions.

“It’s good to get new perspectives, but it goes against the purpose of the UCs, which is to provide quality public education for California residents,” second-year literature major Everest Dillon-Hurley said.

The UC received a record high of 106,186 first-year applications for the fall of 2011. However, the percentage of California residents offered admission fell from 71.6 percent in 2010 to just below 70 percent for 2011.

“The UCs have moved so far from their original principles and purposes [that] they don’t resemble what they used to be,” Dillon-Hurley said.

Michelle Whittingham, associate vice chancellor of enrollment management and director of admissions at UCSC, said these concerns are not validated by UC admissions policies.

“We have a certain amount of students that are California residents that we accept and then another set number for out-of-state students,” Whittingham said.

The increase in admission offers is also a product of the space created by this year’s considerably large graduating class. Whittingham said that increasing the percentage of-out-of state students will not displace in-state students, saying that “the only thing that displaces state students are budget cuts.”

To offset the increased percentage of out-of-state students offered UC admission, the Eligibility in the Local Context (ELC) program has been extended to guarantee UC admission to the top 9 percent of high school students in their graduating class who fulfill the 15 “a–g” course requirements and maintain a 3.0 GPA.

Whittingham said there are benefits to increasing the number of out-of-state students, beyond the additional revenue they bring to the university.

“Geographical diversity is important,” Whittingham said. “We owe it to students to bring in students from different areas and backgrounds.”

DJ Bott is a first-year Porter College student from Florida who came to UCSC for the writing program. Her family has had to ask for extensions on tuition payments more than once, but Bott said the pressure motivates her to get the most from her college education and experience.

“The higher tuition puts a lot of stress on my parents and I, but it drives me to be more successful and to work harder,” Bott said.

It is unclear how the percentage of non-resident students will be affected in the long term by the increase in admissions offers. McCawley says it will depend on how many students — like Bott — choose to accept the financial burden.

“Only time will tell,” McCawley said. “Everyone will have to make their own judgment and decide if it’s worth it to pay the out-of-state tuition fees and make an educational investment.”

Comments
Info for Commenting: Commenter's Code | Privacy Policy
  • Anonymous

     

    University of California Berkeley (Cal) Chancellor’s huge
    mistakes: recruits (using California tax $) out of state $50,000 tuition
    students that displace qualified Californians from public university; spends $7,000,000
    + for consultants to do his & many vice chancellors jobs (prominent East Coast university
    accomplishing same at 0 cost); pays ex Michigan governor $300,000 for
    lectures; Latino enrollment drops while out of state jumps 2010; tuition to
    Return on Investment (ROI) drops below top 10; NCAA places basketball program
    on probation: absence institutional control.

    Chancellor Birgeneau’s
    ($500,000 salary) fiscal track record is dismal indeed.  He would like to blame the politicians, since
    they stopped giving him every dollar asked for, & the state legislators do
    share some responsibility for the financial crisis.  But not in the sense he means.

    A competent
    chancellor would have been on top of identifying inefficiencies & then
    crafting a plan to fix them. Able oversight by the UC Board of Regents &
    the legislature would have required him to provide data on inefficiencies &
    on what steps he was taking to solve them during his 8 year reign.  Instead, every year Birgeneau would request a
    budget increase, the timid president, regents would agree to it, and the legislature
    would provide.  The hard questions were
    avoided by all concerned, & the problems just piled up to $150 million of
    inefficiencies….until there was no money left.

    It’s not
    that Birgeneau was unaware that there were, in fact, waste & inefficiencies
    during his 8 year reign. Faculty & staff raised issues with Birgeneau &
    Provost Breslauer ($400,000 salary), but when they failed to see relevant
    action taken, they stopped.  Finally,
    Birgeneau engaged expensive ($7,000,000 +) consultants to tell him & the
    Provost what they should have known as leaders or been able to find out from
    the bright, engaged people. (Prominent east-coast University accomplishing same
    at 0 costs)

    We are sympathetic
    to the frustration of UC Chancellors running their campuses with declining
    support from the state. Cal.
    has been badly damaged by Birgeneau. Good people are loosing their jobs. Cal’s leadership is
    either incompetent or culpable. Merely cutting out inefficiencies does not have
    the effect desired.

     But you never want a crisis to go to waste. Increasing Cal’s budget is not enough; we
    believe the best course of action for UC is to honorably replace Cal. Chancellor
    Birgeneau