[washingtonismoney]

Pretty common response to the finances/incentives of college education to seek out alternate revenue streams. For example, ASU: http://www.buzzfeed.com/mollyhensleyclan...porate-bac

[washingtonismoney]

Pretty common response to the finances/incentives of college education to seek out alternate revenue streams. For example, ASU: http://www.buzzfeed.com/mollyhensleyclan...porate-bac

[yvonne]

trend:

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_20785646/o...a-students

[yvonne]

trend:

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_20785646/o...a-students

[Farm93]

UC finances are not great and, despite lurker claims, the alums are simply not donating enough into general fund allocations to keep tuition inflation near the CPI growth rate.  So turning to non-Cali's seems fine to me.  Though I remember that it used to be super easy for non-residents to get resident status after a year in the UC system, so I hope that has changed.

My only concern is that 2X the in-state rate noted is probably not high enough of a list price.  Some other public schools in the US News top 30-40 ranking range command out-of-state tuition that is remarkably close to the private schools in the same ranking range.  The UCs probably should have a 3X tuition list price policy for US citizens and maybe even a 3.5X, of even 4X, for internationals.

[Farm93]

UC finances are not great and, despite lurker claims, the alums are simply not donating enough into general fund allocations to keep tuition inflation near the CPI growth rate.  So turning to non-Cali's seems fine to me.  Though I remember that it used to be super easy for non-residents to get resident status after a year in the UC system, so I hope that has changed.

My only concern is that 2X the in-state rate noted is probably not high enough of a list price.  Some other public schools in the US News top 30-40 ranking range command out-of-state tuition that is remarkably close to the private schools in the same ranking range.  The UCs probably should have a 3X tuition list price policy for US citizens and maybe even a 3.5X, of even 4X, for internationals.

[Farm93]

Ferarri, I am trying to decide if the question was pre-teen humor related to easy in some way, a resident status by marriage joke, or a question related to the willingness to charge even higher tuition.  Hmmmm....

[Farm93]

Ferarri, I am trying to decide if the question was pre-teen humor related to easy in some way, a resident status by marriage joke, or a question related to the willingness to charge even higher tuition.  Hmmmm....

[StanFan88]

UC finances are not great and, despite lurker claims, the alums are simply not donating enough into general fund allocations to keep tuition inflation near the CPI growth rate.  So turning to non-Cali's seems fine to me.  Though I remember that it used to be super easy for non-residents to get resident status after a year in the UC system, so I hope that has changed.

My only concern is that 2X the in-state rate noted is probably not high enough of a list price.  Some other public schools in the US News top 30-40 ranking range command out-of-state tuition that is remarkably close to the private schools in the same ranking range.  The UCs probably should have a 3X tuition list price policy for US citizens and maybe even a 3.5X, of even 4X, for internationals.

If I were a UC alumn I wouldn't give the system one stinkin dime beyond taxes I pay to the state.  It's a state government school, and for all their claims about how 90% of their budget isn't paid for by state government, they are still a government-backed institution.  Go find your money in Sacramento.

[StanFan88]

UC finances are not great and, despite lurker claims, the alums are simply not donating enough into general fund allocations to keep tuition inflation near the CPI growth rate.  So turning to non-Cali's seems fine to me.  Though I remember that it used to be super easy for non-residents to get resident status after a year in the UC system, so I hope that has changed.

My only concern is that 2X the in-state rate noted is probably not high enough of a list price.  Some other public schools in the US News top 30-40 ranking range command out-of-state tuition that is remarkably close to the private schools in the same ranking range.  The UCs probably should have a 3X tuition list price policy for US citizens and maybe even a 3.5X, of even 4X, for internationals.

If I were a UC alumn I wouldn't give the system one stinkin dime beyond taxes I pay to the state.  It's a state government school, and for all their claims about how 90% of their budget isn't paid for by state government, they are still a government-backed institution.  Go find your money in Sacramento.

[Mick]

...and a California taxpayer since 1978, it nauseates me in the extreme that (a) the UC System would even seek out students from other states, (b) that at least one campus (UCLA) accepted out of state residents at a higher percentage than in-state students and © that UC tuition has risen so dramatically.  In fact, I seem to recall a graph which compares the state pension obligations (rising dramatically) with the state UC budget (dropping dramatically).

So much for investing in California's future.

[Mick]

...and a California taxpayer since 1978, it nauseates me in the extreme that (a) the UC System would even seek out students from other states, (b) that at least one campus (UCLA) accepted out of state residents at a higher percentage than in-state students and © that UC tuition has risen so dramatically.  In fact, I seem to recall a graph which compares the state pension obligations (rising dramatically) with the state UC budget (dropping dramatically).

So much for investing in California's future.

[Redrum]

" yet another series of institutions that benefits the rich"

But LOTS of discussion back and forth generally agree that "series" is a singular denoting or containing  plural-ness.  Talk about a crabbed justification for an outlier.    Almost makes one wish Harold and the Saxons had won the Battle of Hastings.  But then we'd have articles that changed with every case (dative, accusative ect.) so maybe it's OK that the Frogs won.

[Redrum]

" yet another series of institutions that benefits the rich"

But LOTS of discussion back and forth generally agree that "series" is a singular denoting or containing  plural-ness.  Talk about a crabbed justification for an outlier.    Almost makes one wish Harold and the Saxons had won the Battle of Hastings.  But then we'd have articles that changed with every case (dative, accusative ect.) so maybe it's OK that the Frogs won.

[71Bear]

88 - not sure who you are referencing, but I can confirm UC alums do not donate at any appreciable level.  That is an indisputable fact.

And I agree, why should I donate when I am already paying a sizable chunk of money to the state via my state income tax. 

As for a high percentage of non-Californians being accepted, I really don't care.  The key is quality.  If that means mining other states and countries for students, so be it.

Bottom line - the future of this country lies east.  California is too big and too unwieldy.  It is ungovernable.  And NO, this is NOT a solicitation to vote for breaking the state into six entities.  Two, yes.  Six, no. 

[71Bear]

88 - not sure who you are referencing, but I can confirm UC alums do not donate at any appreciable level.  That is an indisputable fact.

And I agree, why should I donate when I am already paying a sizable chunk of money to the state via my state income tax. 

As for a high percentage of non-Californians being accepted, I really don't care.  The key is quality.  If that means mining other states and countries for students, so be it.

Bottom line - the future of this country lies east.  California is too big and too unwieldy.  It is ungovernable.  And NO, this is NOT a solicitation to vote for breaking the state into six entities.  Two, yes.  Six, no. 

[Leftcoast]

The future of the Country lies East?  East of what? 

The California border?  Nevada/Utah aren't going to attract many people.  No coastal access, low infrastructure, no population centers.

The Rocky Mountains?  As valuable as they are I can't see the heartland leading the future of the country.  Following, yes.

The  Appalachians?  The East Coast will remain more powerful and richer but it hardly ever invents the future, too much embedded in the past (invested in it too).  Trends and innovation start in the West and move East.

Disruptive paradigms and the companies that create them  (Apple, Google, Facebook, Intel, Microsoft, Pixar, Amazon, Disney, Tesla, Boeing, Hewlett Packard, etc)  grew on the West coast - not Virginia or Massachusetts.  In Silicon Valley, Xerox fumbled the future because it might disrupt their copier business.  (Simplistic but essentially true.)  Media powers that grew up in New York look to Hollywood to set taste and create their visions.  Silicon Valley is created on the precept that the best way to predict the future is to invent it. 

I'm pretty pissed off at California's failure to invest in the future - even more so as I prepare to send my third kid to college - but the Golden state has a lot of capital to squander before it will be passed by any state located East of us. 

If you wonder who might threaten California's place on the trendsetting pedestal look to the True East (China) not the East Coast.  And, think 50 years, not tomorrow.

/Lefty

[Leftcoast]

The future of the Country lies East?  East of what? 

The California border?  Nevada/Utah aren't going to attract many people.  No coastal access, low infrastructure, no population centers.

The Rocky Mountains?  As valuable as they are I can't see the heartland leading the future of the country.  Following, yes.

The  Appalachians?  The East Coast will remain more powerful and richer but it hardly ever invents the future, too much embedded in the past (invested in it too).  Trends and innovation start in the West and move East.

Disruptive paradigms and the companies that create them  (Apple, Google, Facebook, Intel, Microsoft, Pixar, Amazon, Disney, Tesla, Boeing, Hewlett Packard, etc)  grew on the West coast - not Virginia or Massachusetts.  In Silicon Valley, Xerox fumbled the future because it might disrupt their copier business.  (Simplistic but essentially true.)  Media powers that grew up in New York look to Hollywood to set taste and create their visions.  Silicon Valley is created on the precept that the best way to predict the future is to invent it. 

I'm pretty pissed off at California's failure to invest in the future - even more so as I prepare to send my third kid to college - but the Golden state has a lot of capital to squander before it will be passed by any state located East of us. 

If you wonder who might threaten California's place on the trendsetting pedestal look to the True East (China) not the East Coast.  And, think 50 years, not tomorrow.

/Lefty

[Farm93]

And I agree, why should I donate when I am already paying a sizable chunk of money to the state via my state income tax. 

As for a high percentage of non-Californians being accepted, I really don't care.  The key is quality.  If that means mining other states and countries for students, so be it.

Hmmm, I think the UC's need to do a better job of explaining why donations are expected.  UTexas apparently does a decent job of getting donations, so perhaps the UCs should look there for future administrative staffer types.  Given the nature of state taxation in the USA it seems the UCs should expect a lot less from the State of California in the future.

I think the UC story needs to include the idea that UC alums are the fortunate few and that there is an expectation of paying it forward beyond simplying paying federal and state taxes.  The resources needed to maintain global excellence are far in excess of what the State can command from citizens and multi-national companies that will never benefit as directly from a quality UC system.  Blah, blah, blah..  If not the UCs can just drift below UMich, UVa, UTexas and UNC.  And that would be OK too since there is no reason for the State of California to have the best public universities if other states do a better job of getting everyone (alums, citizens, companies) to invest more for the future success of their schools.

I think the UCs, and all state universities really, benefit from getting geographical diversity on their campuses.  So I have no real problem with adding more non-Calis to the mix.  My big concern, as a Cali taxpayer, is that the non-Calis should pay something much, much closer to the actual full freight rate.  At many elite colleges the tuition list price is still not really covering the fully burdened cost of a student attending the school.  Many of the international students would be willing to pay quite a lot, if asked, so it would be great to get a touch more out of those that are willing, and able, to pay more.

[Farm93]

And I agree, why should I donate when I am already paying a sizable chunk of money to the state via my state income tax. 

As for a high percentage of non-Californians being accepted, I really don't care.  The key is quality.  If that means mining other states and countries for students, so be it.

Hmmm, I think the UC's need to do a better job of explaining why donations are expected.  UTexas apparently does a decent job of getting donations, so perhaps the UCs should look there for future administrative staffer types.  Given the nature of state taxation in the USA it seems the UCs should expect a lot less from the State of California in the future.

I think the UC story needs to include the idea that UC alums are the fortunate few and that there is an expectation of paying it forward beyond simplying paying federal and state taxes.  The resources needed to maintain global excellence are far in excess of what the State can command from citizens and multi-national companies that will never benefit as directly from a quality UC system.  Blah, blah, blah..  If not the UCs can just drift below UMich, UVa, UTexas and UNC.  And that would be OK too since there is no reason for the State of California to have the best public universities if other states do a better job of getting everyone (alums, citizens, companies) to invest more for the future success of their schools.

I think the UCs, and all state universities really, benefit from getting geographical diversity on their campuses.  So I have no real problem with adding more non-Calis to the mix.  My big concern, as a Cali taxpayer, is that the non-Calis should pay something much, much closer to the actual full freight rate.  At many elite colleges the tuition list price is still not really covering the fully burdened cost of a student attending the school.  Many of the international students would be willing to pay quite a lot, if asked, so it would be great to get a touch more out of those that are willing, and able, to pay more.

[rastaman85]

At the risk of incurring the wrath of several who have posted above (looking at you, StanFan88), I'll say that the part of the UC system where I work receives between 10-12% of our annual budget from the state. We're all encouraged to raise funds wherever we can, and to develop ideas that can be monetized. That's tough--but not impossible--for those in roles like admissions, student affairs, financial aid, career services and the like.

No matter how much we Cardinal want to destroy the Bears and Bruins on the fields of play, I think we can all agree that the UC system has driven a great deal of California's post war economic growth. That's still true--and a strong and vital UC system remains important for the future of our state. Saying that the UC should just "look to Sacramento" is simplistic at best--and truly absurd in the current political climate. It would be wonderful if the voters of California decided that Pat Brown and Clark Kerr had the right idea...but I think most are too busy trying to keep undocumented children out of the state or figuring out the relationship statuses of various Kardashians.

Sigh.

[rastaman85]

At the risk of incurring the wrath of several who have posted above (looking at you, StanFan88), I'll say that the part of the UC system where I work receives between 10-12% of our annual budget from the state. We're all encouraged to raise funds wherever we can, and to develop ideas that can be monetized. That's tough--but not impossible--for those in roles like admissions, student affairs, financial aid, career services and the like.

No matter how much we Cardinal want to destroy the Bears and Bruins on the fields of play, I think we can all agree that the UC system has driven a great deal of California's post war economic growth. That's still true--and a strong and vital UC system remains important for the future of our state. Saying that the UC should just "look to Sacramento" is simplistic at best--and truly absurd in the current political climate. It would be wonderful if the voters of California decided that Pat Brown and Clark Kerr had the right idea...but I think most are too busy trying to keep undocumented children out of the state or figuring out the relationship statuses of various Kardashians.

Sigh.

[71Bear]

Lefty...

I admit to having a bias to the east even though I am a fourth generation Californian.  The reason is simple.  One of my kids teaches in the New York City school system.  What I have learned has impressed the heck out if me.  If California were doing the same as NYC*, I could see a brighter future here, but sadly, they are so far out in front, I can't see the California schools catching up.  CA is in the  grips of the CTA and there is little room for compromise.  OTOH, the NYC system and the Teachers Union just signed off on a long term deal that will benefit the students and teachers. 

Until CA begins addressing its mess of an educational system, I think the future is very grim.

* holding teachers accountable for the performance of their students. 

[71Bear]

Lefty...

I admit to having a bias to the east even though I am a fourth generation Californian.  The reason is simple.  One of my kids teaches in the New York City school system.  What I have learned has impressed the heck out if me.  If California were doing the same as NYC*, I could see a brighter future here, but sadly, they are so far out in front, I can't see the California schools catching up.  CA is in the  grips of the CTA and there is little room for compromise.  OTOH, the NYC system and the Teachers Union just signed off on a long term deal that will benefit the students and teachers. 

Until CA begins addressing its mess of an educational system, I think the future is very grim.

* holding teachers accountable for the performance of their students. 

[Leftcoast]

Understood Mr Be.ar. 

I must admit that a brobdingnagian number of people at Silicon Valley stalwarts were born elsewhere while many California kids fall off the STEM path.  Not sure how New York is doing but there are schools in India which have more alums working at Amazon than most California schools.

[Leftcoast]

Understood Mr Be.ar. 

I must admit that a brobdingnagian number of people at Silicon Valley stalwarts were born elsewhere while many California kids fall off the STEM path.  Not sure how New York is doing but there are schools in India which have more alums working at Amazon than most California schools.

[fullmetal]

In the past 30 or 40 years, there’s been a very sharp increase in the proportion of administrators to faculty and students; faculty and students levels have stayed fairly level relative to one another, but the proportion of administrators have gone way up. There’s a very good book on it by a well-known sociologist, Benjamin Ginsberg, called The Fall of the Faculty: The Rise of the All-Administrative University and Why It Matters (Oxford University Press, 2011), which describes in detail the business style of massive administration and levels of administration—and of course, very highly-paid administrators. This includes professional administrators like deans, for example, who used to be faculty members who took off for a couple of years to serve in an administrative capacity and then go back to the faculty; now they’re mostly professionals, who then have to hire sub-deans, and secretaries, and so on and so forth, a whole proliferation of structure that goes along with administrators. All of that is another aspect of the business model.

[url=http://"http://www.alternet.org/corporate-accountability-and-workplace/chomsky-how-americas-great-university-system-getting?paging=off]How America's Great University System Is Getting Destroyed[/url]

Spoiler: I'm quoting Noam Chomsky. I don't always agree with the man, but this is enough to make me want to read that Ginsberg book.

[fullmetal]

In the past 30 or 40 years, there’s been a very sharp increase in the proportion of administrators to faculty and students; faculty and students levels have stayed fairly level relative to one another, but the proportion of administrators have gone way up. There’s a very good book on it by a well-known sociologist, Benjamin Ginsberg, called The Fall of the Faculty: The Rise of the All-Administrative University and Why It Matters (Oxford University Press, 2011), which describes in detail the business style of massive administration and levels of administration—and of course, very highly-paid administrators. This includes professional administrators like deans, for example, who used to be faculty members who took off for a couple of years to serve in an administrative capacity and then go back to the faculty; now they’re mostly professionals, who then have to hire sub-deans, and secretaries, and so on and so forth, a whole proliferation of structure that goes along with administrators. All of that is another aspect of the business model.

[url=http://"http://www.alternet.org/corporate-accountability-and-workplace/chomsky-how-americas-great-university-system-getting?paging=off]How America's Great University System Is Getting Destroyed[/url]

Spoiler: I'm quoting Noam Chomsky. I don't always agree with the man, but this is enough to make me want to read that Ginsberg book.

[jacketree]

who rolled into Atlanta from way out of state, received a great taxpayer-subsidized education (although we did pay taxes back home with only my sister spending two years at CU), and rolled right out of town a mere four years later, I am very sympathetic to UC grabbing even more than 13% of out-of-state students, and not just for financial reasons. A wider mix of geographic and cultural diversity benefits all students, whether homies or auslanders, even if California is already diverse.  Some (many) of those students will stay in California and contribute to its future. And more competition for slots should mean the students who gain acceptance, wherever they are from, are better.

I don't know what the percentage of non-Californians is for UC graduate programs. I suspect it is pretty high. Is anyone bent out of shape about that?

Mick mentioned something about non-Californians being accepted at higher rates than Californians.  Was that in the article, or a statistic from somewhere else?  Over time that rate will go down as more out of state people think they can get in.

My understanding is that many state schools are nearly private in effect, responsible for raising their own capital constantly.  Ten to twenty percent funding from the state seems to be a norm.

My sister and her husband both work for a Big State University.  I asked them why tuition is skyrocketing much faster than inflation or other cost indices.  "It isn't to pay professors and staff.  See all these new buildings and dorms with ice cream bars and fancy weight rooms?  We can't just keep up with Iowa; we need to crush them."

[jacketree]

who rolled into Atlanta from way out of state, received a great taxpayer-subsidized education (although we did pay taxes back home with only my sister spending two years at CU), and rolled right out of town a mere four years later, I am very sympathetic to UC grabbing even more than 13% of out-of-state students, and not just for financial reasons. A wider mix of geographic and cultural diversity benefits all students, whether homies or auslanders, even if California is already diverse.  Some (many) of those students will stay in California and contribute to its future. And more competition for slots should mean the students who gain acceptance, wherever they are from, are better.

I don't know what the percentage of non-Californians is for UC graduate programs. I suspect it is pretty high. Is anyone bent out of shape about that?

Mick mentioned something about non-Californians being accepted at higher rates than Californians.  Was that in the article, or a statistic from somewhere else?  Over time that rate will go down as more out of state people think they can get in.

My understanding is that many state schools are nearly private in effect, responsible for raising their own capital constantly.  Ten to twenty percent funding from the state seems to be a norm.

My sister and her husband both work for a Big State University.  I asked them why tuition is skyrocketing much faster than inflation or other cost indices.  "It isn't to pay professors and staff.  See all these new buildings and dorms with ice cream bars and fancy weight rooms?  We can't just keep up with Iowa; we need to crush them."

[Mick]

Mick mentioned something about non-Californians being accepted at higher rates than Californians.  Was that in the article, or a statistic from somewhere else?  Over time that rate will go down as more out of state people think they can get in.

In the fall of 2013 we were looking at schools for my youngest.  I happened to run across the 2013 acceptance rates from UCLA.  33.68% for non-Californians, 17.87% for California natives.  Read 'em and weep.  Although I fully realize that it is a lot simpler for California residents who are likely headed to a less-selective UC to check the "UCLA" or "UCB" boxes, that still doesn't explain the full difference.  To add a little salt to the wound, my son's high school counselors begged UCLA and UCB to send representatives to their high schools.  Ignored for decades, but they travel the country at the drop of the hat to attract applications from outside the state.

Preliminary figures for fall, 2014 are similar:  16.53% for California natives, 27.09% for out of state. 

By way of comparison, in 1998 UCLA's acceptance rate was 34% for California residents, 34.6% for out of state.  out of state applications have doubled as a percentage of the total, however.

I wonder what the UCLA representatives say to the kids at Deerfield Academy or Brooklyn Poly Prep?  "Man, we hose the crap out of Californians so you guys can have a much higher acceptance rate."

[Mick]

Mick mentioned something about non-Californians being accepted at higher rates than Californians.  Was that in the article, or a statistic from somewhere else?  Over time that rate will go down as more out of state people think they can get in.

In the fall of 2013 we were looking at schools for my youngest.  I happened to run across the 2013 acceptance rates from UCLA.  33.68% for non-Californians, 17.87% for California natives.  Read 'em and weep.  Although I fully realize that it is a lot simpler for California residents who are likely headed to a less-selective UC to check the "UCLA" or "UCB" boxes, that still doesn't explain the full difference.  To add a little salt to the wound, my son's high school counselors begged UCLA and UCB to send representatives to their high schools.  Ignored for decades, but they travel the country at the drop of the hat to attract applications from outside the state.

Preliminary figures for fall, 2014 are similar:  16.53% for California natives, 27.09% for out of state. 

By way of comparison, in 1998 UCLA's acceptance rate was 34% for California residents, 34.6% for out of state.  out of state applications have doubled as a percentage of the total, however.

I wonder what the UCLA representatives say to the kids at Deerfield Academy or Brooklyn Poly Prep?  "Man, we hose the crap out of Californians so you guys can have a much higher acceptance rate."

[jacketree]

Sweatshirt sales and out of state tuition through the roof!!

The prisons aren't distributed well, but what about the UCs?



University of North California (UNC - to be confused with UNC Chapel Hill and the school in Greeley)
University of Silicon Valley at Berkeley (Changing the script 'Cal' to a script 'Val' can't be too hard.)
University of Silicon Valley at San Francisco (USVSF)
University of Silicon Valley at Santa Cruz (USVSC)
University of Central California (Merced your Delta name is now....'Central')
University of West California at Los Angeles (UWCLA, thus completing the true phonetic spelling of 'yewkla')
University of West California at Santa Barbara (UWCSB)
University of South California at Irvine (USCI)
University of South California at Riverside (USCR)
University of South California at San Diego (USCSD)

Jefferson as usual gets screwed in the deal.  I suppose they can rename Chico or Humbolt or just convert Pelican Bay.

[jacketree]

Sweatshirt sales and out of state tuition through the roof!!

The prisons aren't distributed well, but what about the UCs?



University of North California (UNC - to be confused with UNC Chapel Hill and the school in Greeley)
University of Silicon Valley at Berkeley (Changing the script 'Cal' to a script 'Val' can't be too hard.)
University of Silicon Valley at San Francisco (USVSF)
University of Silicon Valley at Santa Cruz (USVSC)
University of Central California (Merced your Delta name is now....'Central')
University of West California at Los Angeles (UWCLA, thus completing the true phonetic spelling of 'yewkla')
University of West California at Santa Barbara (UWCSB)
University of South California at Irvine (USCI)
University of South California at Riverside (USCR)
University of South California at San Diego (USCSD)

Jefferson as usual gets screwed in the deal.  I suppose they can rename Chico or Humbolt or just convert Pelican Bay.

[CTcard]

My sister and her husband both work for a Big State University.  I asked them why tuition is skyrocketing much faster than inflation or other cost indices.  "It isn't to pay professors and staff.  See all these new buildings and dorms with ice cream bars and fancy weight rooms?  We can't just keep up with Iowa; we need to crush them."

There's an aspect of that - notably trying to house a higher fraction of stoudents on campus and in nicer digs. There's also the rise in administrators - and the rise of the administrator career-track as noted in the Chomsky quotations above. But the overall situation of what colleges are spending to operate the place does not quite match what I hear about in the news most of the time.

Today's NY Times had a relevant article, though perhaps discussed in an awkward manner.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/29/upshot...ation&_r=0

You may notice that from 1992 through 2009, average tuition and fees actually paid at public four year colleges were dead flat in real terms, and then started rising, taking off in 2010. At least the first part of that sentence is not generally known (and not believed either). This may not be particularly relevant to what an individual will pay for many reasons* but it does reflect the money used to operate the place beyond state support (federal support also figures in a complicated manner, but the discretionary part of that is pretty small averaged over all public colleges). That steep rise beginning in 2009 is entirely due to trying to make up the drop in state support caused by the financial disaster that began in 2008.  In fact I understand that total operating expenditures have dropped substantially in that period even in nominal dollars.

That steep rise in tuition and fees paid is also associated with most public schools looking at out of state students as a way to increase tuition income with some constraint on tuition rates in state - while also increasing the quality of the student body. That may or may not be good public policy, particularly in a big state like California, but it's not hard to see why universities looked that direction in the circumstances.



* One reason is that the model for tuition at public universities has been changing. Previously the idea was low tuition for all with little financial aid, with the balance to be covered by the sponsoring state. More recently, the model has shifted to less state contribution, higher nominal tuition, and substantial financial aid (the private school model), which substantially alters who foots the bills.
Another reason is that most families don't think about tuition and fees they pay as a separate entity, but rather the entire bill which includes room and board along with some other items. I understand room and board has been rising faster than average tuition, pre-2009 anyway, and that is where all those things like more, newer dorms come in. 

[CTcard]

My sister and her husband both work for a Big State University.  I asked them why tuition is skyrocketing much faster than inflation or other cost indices.  "It isn't to pay professors and staff.  See all these new buildings and dorms with ice cream bars and fancy weight rooms?  We can't just keep up with Iowa; we need to crush them."

There's an aspect of that - notably trying to house a higher fraction of stoudents on campus and in nicer digs. There's also the rise in administrators - and the rise of the administrator career-track as noted in the Chomsky quotations above. But the overall situation of what colleges are spending to operate the place does not quite match what I hear about in the news most of the time.

Today's NY Times had a relevant article, though perhaps discussed in an awkward manner.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/29/upshot...ation&_r=0

You may notice that from 1992 through 2009, average tuition and fees actually paid at public four year colleges were dead flat in real terms, and then started rising, taking off in 2010. At least the first part of that sentence is not generally known (and not believed either). This may not be particularly relevant to what an individual will pay for many reasons* but it does reflect the money used to operate the place beyond state support (federal support also figures in a complicated manner, but the discretionary part of that is pretty small averaged over all public colleges). That steep rise beginning in 2009 is entirely due to trying to make up the drop in state support caused by the financial disaster that began in 2008.  In fact I understand that total operating expenditures have dropped substantially in that period even in nominal dollars.

That steep rise in tuition and fees paid is also associated with most public schools looking at out of state students as a way to increase tuition income with some constraint on tuition rates in state - while also increasing the quality of the student body. That may or may not be good public policy, particularly in a big state like California, but it's not hard to see why universities looked that direction in the circumstances.



* One reason is that the model for tuition at public universities has been changing. Previously the idea was low tuition for all with little financial aid, with the balance to be covered by the sponsoring state. More recently, the model has shifted to less state contribution, higher nominal tuition, and substantial financial aid (the private school model), which substantially alters who foots the bills.
Another reason is that most families don't think about tuition and fees they pay as a separate entity, but rather the entire bill which includes room and board along with some other items. I understand room and board has been rising faster than average tuition, pre-2009 anyway, and that is where all those things like more, newer dorms come in. 

[washingtonismoney]

1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol's_cost_disease

2) the federal policy of giving out loans and aid somewhat indiscriminately -- it invites colleges to drive up tuition because it's willing to subsidize any level of consumption.

3) that's the supply side of the equation. Demand-wise, the U.S. News rankings and student expectations are important here -- these two things militate in ever-greater investment and production of amenities, which of course drives up tuition. Falling state aid doesn't exactly help, but because of Baumol's, subsidization and the changing nature of student demand, tuition would've risen dramatically in any case. (As we see with state schools' private counterparts.)

[washingtonismoney]

1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol's_cost_disease

2) the federal policy of giving out loans and aid somewhat indiscriminately -- it invites colleges to drive up tuition because it's willing to subsidize any level of consumption.

3) that's the supply side of the equation. Demand-wise, the U.S. News rankings and student expectations are important here -- these two things militate in ever-greater investment and production of amenities, which of course drives up tuition. Falling state aid doesn't exactly help, but because of Baumol's, subsidization and the changing nature of student demand, tuition would've risen dramatically in any case. (As we see with state schools' private counterparts.)

[81alum]

I am more familiar with CSU than with UC finances, but my guess is that the two suffer from the same broad problems.

For the CSU, taxpayers used to pay for about 85% of the costs of an undergraduate's education, and now it is down to less than 50%.  Public universities are not truly public anymore--they have become public/private hybrids in their funding base, and so it should be no surprise when they start behaving more like privates. 

In fact, you could say that California is getting a better deal than it deserves.  It pays for less than half of the costs of undergraduate education, but it gets well over half of the slots for its own students.  You want California's public universities to reserve every slot for California students?  Fine, then California needs to pay for every slot.  It does not. 

With regard to fundraising.  Even Stanford has a hard time raising money for "general funds."  Almost all donors have specific ideas of what they want done with their contributions, and so the advancement dollars are nice supplements to enhance a campus but seldom can substitute for general funds raised through tuition or tax dollars.  UC could raise five times as much money as it does and have the same financial woes when it comes to tuition dollars.  It might, however, pay for its stadium.

With regard to the seeming disparity on in-state vs. out-of-state acceptance rates, I think it is most probably due to academic qualifications.  The self-selected group of students applying to UC from out of state will naturally tend to be higher academic achievers than the much larger cross section of California applicants.  It takes more initiative to seek to travel out-of-state, especially when you know you will be paying very high tuition for four years.  Out-of-state students are required to have a higher minimum GPA than in-state students, for example--although you might not notice differences at the most selective of the campuses.

With regard to establishing residency, it is now almost impossible for a student under the age of 24 to establish residency unless he/she has a parent in California.  You have to prove financial independence from your out-of-state parents to do so.  This is a similar issue for California residents who have been cut off from their parents (often caught in-between in a divorce)--I have had students who simply have to drop out of school until 24, since the proof of financial independence is such a high bar to clear.

[81alum]

I am more familiar with CSU than with UC finances, but my guess is that the two suffer from the same broad problems.

For the CSU, taxpayers used to pay for about 85% of the costs of an undergraduate's education, and now it is down to less than 50%.  Public universities are not truly public anymore--they have become public/private hybrids in their funding base, and so it should be no surprise when they start behaving more like privates. 

In fact, you could say that California is getting a better deal than it deserves.  It pays for less than half of the costs of undergraduate education, but it gets well over half of the slots for its own students.  You want California's public universities to reserve every slot for California students?  Fine, then California needs to pay for every slot.  It does not. 

With regard to fundraising.  Even Stanford has a hard time raising money for "general funds."  Almost all donors have specific ideas of what they want done with their contributions, and so the advancement dollars are nice supplements to enhance a campus but seldom can substitute for general funds raised through tuition or tax dollars.  UC could raise five times as much money as it does and have the same financial woes when it comes to tuition dollars.  It might, however, pay for its stadium.

With regard to the seeming disparity on in-state vs. out-of-state acceptance rates, I think it is most probably due to academic qualifications.  The self-selected group of students applying to UC from out of state will naturally tend to be higher academic achievers than the much larger cross section of California applicants.  It takes more initiative to seek to travel out-of-state, especially when you know you will be paying very high tuition for four years.  Out-of-state students are required to have a higher minimum GPA than in-state students, for example--although you might not notice differences at the most selective of the campuses.

With regard to establishing residency, it is now almost impossible for a student under the age of 24 to establish residency unless he/she has a parent in California.  You have to prove financial independence from your out-of-state parents to do so.  This is a similar issue for California residents who have been cut off from their parents (often caught in-between in a divorce)--I have had students who simply have to drop out of school until 24, since the proof of financial independence is such a high bar to clear.