Chancellor Robert Birgeneau has requested that a proposed piece of state legislation that could cap out-of-state student enrollment at UC campuses be withdrawn from consideration by the state Senate.
Birgeneau asked that Sen. Michael Rubio, D-Shafter, withdraw his proposed constitutional amendment — which would establish a 10 percent cap on out-of-state enrollment at each of the 10 UC campuses — stating that “at Berkeley capping the number at 10 percent would do irreparable harm to Californians.”
The amendment includes international students as out-of-state students — although the university differentiates between international and out-of-state students in its enrollment data — and would start with the 2013-14 freshman class. The amendment could be acted on by the state Senate as early as June 15 and would require a two-thirds majority vote to pass.
In a letter to Rubio, Birgeneau cited a shortfall in campus revenue, the elimination of the Middle Class Access Plan and an inability to provide financial aid for undocumented students as consequences of capping enrollment at UC Berkeley. The Middle Class Access plan caps the contributions of families earning $80,000 to $140,000 annually at 15 percent of their total income.
Birgeneau stated that by capping enrollment at 10 percent, California residents would not be able to graduate in four years due to a lack of resources and funding for campuses that is directly correlated with the tuition received from out-of-state students.
He also added that the loss of funding from nonresidents would lead to a reduction in funds available for financial aid generally provided to native Californian students, which could mean an increase for in-state tuition.
The university currently has a policy to limit out-of-state enrollment at 10 percent systemwide and was at 8.4 percent as of fall 2011. However, individual campuses like UC Berkeley and UCLA have higher nonresident enrollment figures, with undergraduate student enrollment at 18 percent at UC Berkeley and 14 percent at UCLA overall in fall 2011.
In his statement, Birgeneau also said that increasing the percentage of nonresident students to 20 percent of undergraduate enrollment would not lead to the elimination of admission slots for California residents at UC Berkeley.
According to preliminary UC Office of the President admissions data for 2012, approximately 3,690 nonresident students have been accepted to UC Berkeley this year, out of a total 13,038 students accepted to the campus in total. Systemwide, approximately 18,846 nonresident students have been accepted to the UC out of a total 80,289 students.
However, UC spokesperson Dianne Klein said that admissions figures do not necessarily reflect enrollment figures because less out-of-state students may accept admission to the UC, allowing the university to still fall under its systemwide 10 percent cap.
Klein has also said the university is likely to oppose the amendment, although UC analysts have not yet completed their analysis of the legislation.
But Charlie Eaton, a UC Berkeley Ph.D. student and financial secretary for United Auto Workers Local 2865 — a union which represents nearly 12,000 graduate student instructors, readers and tutors — said he supports the amendment and increasing in state enrollment for lower income students.
“Chancellor Birgeneau’s position showed that he doesn’t care about declining enrollment for lower income students — especially for students of color and of the Latino community,” Eaton said. “Students are going to demand a change in direction towards in state enrollment and access for all California students.”
Eaton plans to attend the UC Board of Regents meeting in July with fellow union members to protest systemwide fee increases for students.
Anjuli Sastry is an assistant news editor.
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.
Minimum requirements for the next Chancellor should be, a current
California resident, preferably born and educated in California. Individuals in leadership who are not from California, apparently don’t understand or take the meaning of Golden
State literally.
Birgie actually used “we can’t support financial support for illegals” as an argument?
Shows how truly out of touch he is with the people of California. Californians 1) don’t believe in affirmative action 2) don’t support illegal immigrants.
The solution is so obvious I wonder why no one thought of it…. Fill up UC Merced and UC Riverside with out of state students first! UC administrators try to confuse California’s taxpayers by claiming that all eligible Californians are admitted into UC. They just don’t say which UC campus. If UC Merced and UC Riverside are perfectly fine schools for Californians, then by golly they should be good enough for out of state students too! Except no out of state student would want to waste $52,000 a year. They all want to come to Cal, UCLA, UCI, and UCSD. Thus UC administrators use the top campuses to attract wealthy students or students with solid loans from out of state, and mollify top Californian students with UC Merced and UC Riverside.
Who suffers most? California’s moderate income white and Asian students who worked hard for acceptance at the top UC campuses. They don’t have the money to go to a private university and they don’t have the right skin color to claim adversity in high school. Out of state white and Asian students with terrific (but not stellar) academic accomplishments are welcomed with open arms by Cal and UCLA while California’s own terrific kids have to seek acceptance elsewhere even though their families paid California taxes for generations. I have nothing against out of state students, and their high achievements keeps Cal as the number one public university, but California’s own young achievers must come first.
Rubio’s amendment may have the unintended consequence of encouraging California’s conservatives to agree to higher income taxes and parcel taxes. Many conservatives hate the thought of increased taxes to fund teacher’s unions, illegal aliens, or higher education while their kids are denied entrance to the top UC schools. Capping the admissions for outsiders helps convince conservatives that funding UC is worthwhile. Once UC gets more state funding, the desperation for out of state tuition would be reduced.
So you think admissions favors out of state students over equally qualified state students? I would think the percent of out of state students would be much higher now than it is then. I think Rubio realizes that out of state students that go to Cal actually earned it over lesser qualified in state students, and that is why he is trying to block the out of staters.
Your last point is very wishful thinking. Conservatives won’t vote for higher taxes even if you promise to make Cal all Californian and remove every liberal professor and class from the university. Cal isn’t really on their radar when it comes to taxes. They know that the legislature has wasted all the money that was given to them during the prosperous times while still cutting funding to Cal. This bill by Rubio is just another example that the legislature doesn’t understand or care about the economics of the UC. He is willing to cut more funding to Cal and raise tuition to make it look like he supports Californians, when he really doesn’t like the UC, or he is just stupid. Unfortunately, he may be both. Thankfully, he has to get a two third vote before he can hurt us with this legislation.
You are right. Cal could easily fill up with only international students from India or China alone. However, Birgeneau has set a target of 20% for out of state students so that’s what the admissions readers produced. Here’s my hypothesis: Not all students from out of state are better in every way than the top in-state students rejected by Cal. Let’s just look at the non-minority middle to high income California families for now. Their kids have taken all the UC prerequisites and often have a weighed GPA above 4.2. Their combined SAT scores are above 2200, with some getting a perfect 2400. They score the maximum 5 on two to four AP courses. They volunteer, join the band, play varsity sports, and have unique “hooks” that make them interesting. Yet anecdotal evidence suggests many such fine students are rejected by Cal and UCLA. When speaking to out of state students, I honestly can’t tell how they are superior in any way to California’s outstanding students. Not every out of state student has a 4.6 GPA and 2400 SATs, or won the Intel Science Fair. Cal students who made it in on merit alone are all smart and talented but I just wish more native Californians could have been accepted. I do believe in merit though and top out of state students of any race are preferable to native students with lower academic achievements who make it in to Cal based on racial preferences.
I also believe that many conservatives will vote for higher taxes if we have a child or grandchild in the UC system and believe the tax bill guarantees funds for public universities. Conservatives hate taxes in general but if we are certain our family members can benefit from higher taxes then we will give generously. That is one reason many wealthy parents convince their wealthy neighbors to donate to local elementary schools that serve their upper income neighborhoods. When the state threatens to take away some of those parent donations to give to poor school districts, the donations evaporate immediately. By opening up UC to more California families, Rubio could perhaps get more funding for UC.
It is hard to believe that there are non-engineering students applying to Cal that don’t get in with the qualifications you list, but it could be possible. It would actually be great if the university showed data on applicants so we could see if there are highly qualified students not getting accepted. I know BAMN was saying that the top student from Berkeley High did not get accepted, but I don’t know what her qualifications looked like or what major she applied to.
I would love to see more Californians accepted, but I blame the legislature again. They have gutted our elementary, middle, and high schools so that it is tough for in state students to reach their potential and make it into Cal.
I could see people accepting higher taxes if the money was directed. However, I don’t believe for a second that the legislature will take tax increases and apply them to Cal. They have refused to guarantee us any money from the tax initiative if it passes, and I know the regents only support the tax initiative because they are desperate and hope we get some of the additional revenue. I won’t hold my breath for that. I do expect rich kids to get to Cal if their parents donate. For example, every Haas child will get into Cal as long as they are not brain dead.
“Once UC gets more state funding…”
Unfortunately this isn’t going to happen until Sacramento addresses pension & healthcare liability.
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/06/opinion/la-oe-crane6-2010apr06
I know. California has a long way to go before its public universities get the attention they deserve. As a conservative I wouldn’t want to pay more taxes until the state’s unfunded liabilities are resolved.
Birgeneau should go away to obscurity now that he is nearing his retirement. Californians should be able to send their children to the University at Berkeley at affordable tuition prices or for free since they are the taxpayers and live in our State.
Birgenau wants to balance his budget on the backs of the people of California and the students who should be going here to pay his outrageous salary and retirement rather than do his primary job, educating our young people. He is a disgrace and should get out NOW!!
The whole BERKELEY IS A CALIFORNIA SCHOOL thing is derptastic. Education is supposed to be the equalizer. Saying that Berkeley should be limited to Californians makes it pay to play, in terms of taxes. Purely merit-based admissions is the way to go.
Or they can make every student in the UC system sign a contract that they will donate a certain portion of their income in the future in a progressive taxation manner as a condition of attending Berkeley while they are alive. Let us see as to how willing are Cal applicants to sign this contract. Of course the Rubio business is just a pandering exercise to the AFSCME. It is nothing but shortsighted and ignorant.
BTW there were 9.2k foreign applicants at Cal for its 2012 freshman class compared to Harvard’s 6.2 k applicants for its 2012 freshman class By the same token, there were 9.8k foreign applicants at UCLA’s 2012 freshman class compared to only 6.4k applicants at the University of Southern California.
Think someone should tell him that he’s managing a *California* public university? Yet more evidence that Birgie’s gotta go.
This guy is like the opposite of Tien in policies, effectiveness and (apparently) intellect.
Lame. Who cares if it’s a California public university or not? Most top universities – public or private – have plenty of out of state students. That’s what quality is all about. If you want a more “California” school, hey, Irvine calls for you. But don’t hold Berkeley back.
poor Birgeneau, crying in his beer.
maybe he should not have previously claimed that the University of California was a ‘federal university’.
I thought libs like diversity ?
it’s the University of CALIFORNIA.
derp
the real reason your analogy is fallacious:
persons from other states are not historically discriminated against.
Troll Fail Fails again. The SACTO LibTard from Shafter is sticking it to UC. Read the article Fail Troll.
Diversity and discrimination don’t go hand-in-hand, and out-of-state refers to international students too.
Meh, keep the International students, send the out-of-staters to UCR.
I hate it when these things happen because it just makes Californians hate us out-of-staters even more. Sometimes I feel as if I am not even welcome at my own university. Comments condemning out of staters…begin!
You act as though it’s something personal against people who don’t live in California…really now?
It’s all economical and political. Because out of state students pay substantially more tuition than in state students, the administration wants their enrollment to remain uncapped (so as to be able to raise more money from tuition). But since out of state students can displace potential in state students (because of the administration’s favorability in admission to the higher tuition students), in state students feel like the benefits of the tax dollars they pay into the UC system–which out of state students do not–are not being returned to them. THAT’S THE ISSUE.
SACTO Libs know what’s best. Look at what a fine job they did putting Cali in the sheeter.
Why do you keep electing these idiots?
Wut.
No condemnation here. Out of state and international students add true diversity. The out of state and international ratio should actually go up to around 50% at Berkeley. Having students from primarily within one state is what sets a public university apart from a private in the US. Having students from all over the US and world makes for a much more useful alumni network that will aid students careers in the future. A higher level of out of state and international students from high enough income social circles makes a UC education for Californians a more valuable education; this should be seen as a priority for the top ranked UC’s. It boggles the mind why UC considers that first generation students from low income backgrounds whose families have contributed next to nothing to this state or country have some kind of inherent right to go to the best public universities in the state over native born students whose families have contributed to California and the US for generations. UC should not be giving these students preference in admissions over native born students, whether in state or out of state, or over international students who pay full cost. Besides preference in admissions, they also are given a free ride, increasing costs for everyone else. They can just as well go to less selective UC’s or CSU campuses. Having a high percentage of 1st generation and low income students at Berkeley, UCLA and UCSD should be seen as a failure in UC admissions not anything to be celebrated. This is not a positive or zero sum game. A high percentage of low income 1st generation students means a lower percentage of native born students. This admissions pardigm promotes the private university as a more valuable experience for a student’s career than a public university.
”Out of state and international students add true diversity. The out of
state and international ratio should actually go up to around 50% at
Berkeley.”
So it’s just like affirmative action…but for people who have money.
“A higher level of out of state and international students from high
enough income social circles makes a UC education for Californians a
more valuable education; this should be seen as a priority for the top
ranked UC’s.”
Making a university exclusively for the rich (not to mention paid for by the poor and middle-class) is completely immoral, undemocratic, and unconstitutional (if you’re a constitution=jesus type of person).
“It boggles the mind why UC considers that first generation students from
low income backgrounds whose families have contributed next to nothing
to this state or country have some kind of inherent right to go to the
best public universities in the state over native born students whose
families have contributed to California and the US for generations.”
Entitlement is a fallacy, and means that you can get something without earning it. The sons and daughters of richer people are no “smarter” than those of first-generation college families, though they probably got a much more complete education at a fancy high school. The reason why first-gen students are given preference is 1) so that they can “bootstrap” themselves and their families out of a strictly working-class environment, and 2) because they probably had fewer educational opportunities in high school than a richer/educated family’s child.
“Besides preference in admissions, they also are given a free ride,
increasing costs for everyone else. They can just as well go to less
selective UC’s or CSU campuses.”
Promoting class warfare by denying poorer people equal opportunities–even to have the CHANCE to succeed–is reprehensible. Your statement essentially translates to: “The poorer students are given admission preference and scholarships (at the expense of those who can better afford these costs). Instead of allowing them to participate in the same environment as the richer students, they should be segregated into less prestigious institutions where they can receive inferior educations to the rich”.
What the heck happened to fairness, equality, and morality? It seems like now it’s all lost in a rush for profits and money, and we can step on anyone’s backs to get there…
I should not have agreed with the previous post….. mea culpa. In truth I only agreed with it partly. Yes I totally agree with you that the poor should be given preferences above all things. That does not mean that a Latino poor should be given preference over a poorer Asian or White even if he got lower grades and SATs. That is something totally repugnant and loathsome.
I note the fact that 35 % of Cal Berkeley undergraduates in 2010 are eligible for Pell grants unlike Stanford and the the Ivies where on the average it is only 12%.
No. Not for people who have money. It’s like affirmative action for like, people who actually have talent.
You’re forgetting that out of state students are on the whole academically stronger than the California admit pool.
agreed
I love out of state students, and I was born and raised in the Bay Area. Cal is only the quality of university it is because of out of state students. You give us variety of thought and intellect. That idiot senator Rubio was an out of state college student, but doesn’t seem to remember. Just imagine if we said our professors and employees had to be 90% Californian, then Cal would be in even worse shape. Next the democratic senate will cut all the courses that deal with anything that doesn’t happen in California. I hate those Sacramento dimwits, but I love you out of state students.
This is spot-on.
Condemnation? No way! First of all, thanks for being here. You’re making the rest of Berkeley smarter. Most of its students were educated at crappy public K-12 schools.
Out of state students bring in not just dollars (in fact, I think the financial aspect has been stupidly overemphasized by the administration). They bring in student quality, and diffusion of talent from outside California to inside the state. Those saying “Berkeley for Californians” are akin to the narrow minded folks asking for immigration to be halted. We need world class universities in California – like Stanford, like Berkeley – to act as a magnet for the world’s best talent. Many students who come here will end up staying and contributing to the California economy.As I see it, out of staters face a doubly whammy when it comes to our schools. First, much harder for you to get in. Second, you pay WAY more than California residents do. One or the other should be discarded. I’d recommend that Berkeley even the playing field completely, give no geographical preference, and just assemble the damn strongest class it can. I’d bet 50% of the student body would be out of state and international. And the tuition revenue bump would be frosting on the cake.