SAN FRANCISCO—At a meeting of the UC Board of Regents Wednesday, admissions and enrollment data generated debate among board members who were divided over how the university will determine the makeup of its student body in years to come, while balancing a need to increase revenue, decrease excess costs and serve the needs of as many students as possible.
At the meeting, some board members advocated for increased international and out-of-state enrollment in order to maintain a competitive academic climate and to generate revenue. However, others emphasized a need to remain committed to the state’s Master Plan for Higher Education, which has the intent of allowing Californians — including first-generation and lower-income students — access to higher education.
A presentation by UC officials at the meeting laid out several goals for the university in the coming enrollment cycles, including boosting the overall quality of incoming students, increasing the presence of underrepresented minorities and maintaining a sufficient level of access for disadvantaged students.
In addition to the increased revenue international and out-of-state students generate through tuition, one of the Committee on Educational Policy’s agenda items states that nonresident students’ qualifications, including high school grade point averages and standardized test scores, are “better in many respects.”
“The UC is a very special place, and we have an obligation to attract and keep the brightest students in the world to our campuses,” said Regent George Marcus at the meeting. “I don’t think that it’s in conflict with any of our policies.”
Board members were also concerned that other prestigious international universities could offer more enticing enrollment packages to students that would otherwise attend a UC campus. However, figures presented at the meeting show an upswing in nonresident enrollment from about eight percent in 2010 to over 12 percent in 2011.
In addition to concern that the university is not able to enroll top-tier nonresident students, Regent George Kieffer said that the university’s current focus on fundraising efforts for scholarships for disadvantaged students might be stifling the university’s ability to attract quality California resident students.
While the board addressed concerns regarding attracting qualified students, it also discussed the freeze in enrollment growth brought on by state budget cuts and the need to continue increasing the overall diversity of the student body.
In addition to ethnic diversity, the board discussed ongoing efforts to make affordable education available to every socioeconomic class. The presentation showed that in 2011, 45 percent of incoming freshmen were first-generation university students, and more than 40 percent of freshmen were from low-income families.
“It’s important to highlight what the University of California does for the state of California by providing access to an educational experience that may not otherwise be available to those students,” said Daniel Simmons, chair of the systemwide Academic Senate.
Ultimately, the board shelved decisions brought up at the meeting — including proposed additional costs to international students’ tuition fees — and reserved them for Thursday’s meeting.
Damian Ortellado of The Daily Californian contributed to this report.
Comment Policy
Comments should remain on topic, concerning the article or blog post to which they are connected. Brevity is encouraged. Posting under a pseudonym is discouraged, but permitted. The Daily Cal encourages readers to voice their opinions respectfully in regard to the readers, writers and contributors of The Daily Californian. Comments are not pre-moderated, but may be removed if deemed to be in violation of this policy. Click here to read the full comment policy.
When the middle class cannot attend, espacially the highest achieving students who cannot get into the campus of their choice, or who cannot afford to attend because all of the money is going to the bottom end, then it becomes very easy for the middle class to look the other way while the UC system gets de-funded. My kid was unable to go to the campus of their choice this year, even though they were highly qualified, because that campus would rather admit tons of out of state and internationals who can pay full out of state tuition. So regents, understand that the choices you are and have been making are creating a political situation that will only make it harder for the UC’s in the future. You might as well privatize, because I’ll never support any further increases in state funding from current levels, ever. And if you think I’m alone you had better think twice.
I think education is important for all of society.
The real question is what will happen to Cal when Moonbeam and his Sacto Libs run out of money.
The real concern should not be for low income first generation students
whose families have essentially paid nothing into the system and who
are eligible for a free education but that only 8% of students come
from the heart of the middle class making between $80,000 and $120,000,
from about the 50th to the 94th percentile in terms of family income.
http://i51.tinypic.com/33lczn8.jpg
This is gross
underrepesentation of California’s middle class whose children are by
and large far more educationally qualified to attend than the children
of the lower 50% and this percent will shrink further in the near
future as this group was already largely priced out of a UC education
even before the tuition increases of the past year. Not only is this
class not eligible for any grant based financial aid but then must
shoulder the burden of paying for the education of the lower 50% by
being charged tuition and residence hall fees that do not represent the
cost of the education or services provided but have a large
redistributive element that goes to fund the education of the lower
50%. It is the disconnect from the heart of California’s middle class
that makes possible the current disinvestment in higher education. If
UC was still a meaningful part of the lives of a majority of the middle
class, there would be effective public uproar over any disinvestment.
This is an engaging argument, but it doesn’t account for the State’s disinvestment in CSU and the community colleges, which middle-income students can still afford.
This is an engaging argument, but it doesn’t account for the State’s disinvestment in CSU and the community colleges, which middle-income students can still afford.