UC sees uptick in admissions of foreign, out-of-state students – Los Angeles Times (particpation)
What does this tell us about admissions, meritocracy, and notions of “fairness”
UC admits more foreign, out-of-state students
The university offers fall entrance to 43% more non-California freshmen than last year. Such students would each pay an extra $23,000 a year, helping plug budget gaps caused by reductions in state funding.
April 18, 2012|By Larry Gordon, Los Angeles Times
The University of California admitted 43% more out-of-state and international freshmen than last year, significantly boosting its controversial efforts to enroll those higher-paying students, according to data released Tuesday.
As a result, officials said they expected the share of the upcoming freshman class from outside California to be somewhat higher than the 12.3% this school year but said the actual proportion remains uncertain because non-Californians are less likely to enroll than resident students.
UC offered fall entrance to 61,443 California students to at least one of its nine undergraduate campuses, an increase of 3.6% from last year.
FOR THE RECORD:
Transit: An April 16 Op-Ed article about the 30/10 transit plan in Southern California referred to a 72-22 Senate vote on a two-year transportation bill. The vote was 74 to 22. —
It also admitted 18,846 students from other states and countries, up from 13,144 the previous year. Those students would each pay an extra $23,000 a year and help plug the budget gaps caused by reductions in state funding. Students have until May 1 to decide whether to enroll.
UC hopes to raise the overall enrollment of non-Californians to 10% of all undergraduates in a few years, up from the current 6.9%, although UCLA and UC Berkeley already have much higher shares of out-of-staters.
Kate Jeffery, UC’s interim director of undergraduate admissions, said Tuesday that more California students “are being squeezed out” of their first- or second-choice campuses, and she blamed cuts in state funding, not the rise in out-of-state admissions. However, she insisted that all students who meet UC’s academic requirements are being offered a space somewhere in the system, with UC Merced as the backup if all other campuses have rejected them.
Because applications from state residents increased substantially and enrollment is not expanding much, it got harder for Californians to find a spot in UC. The situation may have been inadvertently worsened by changes this year in UC admissions criteria that were approved before the state budget crisis and were intended to expand the application pool; those reforms included dropping the requirement that students take two supplemental SAT subject exams, although the main SAT or ACT tests are still mandatory.
Overall, the admissions rate for California students declined from 69.7% last year to 65.8% for fall 2012. And non-Californians faced a similar trend: 53.9% of out-of-state students in the U.S. were admitted, down from 60.7% last year, and about 61.3% of foreign applicants, compared to 64.1% in 2011.
UCLA again was the hardest UC campus to crack for Californians, with only 17.7% offered entrance at the Westwood school. Next came Berkeley, 22.7%; San Diego, 32.1%; Irvine, 33.6%; Santa Barbara, 41%; Davis, 44.5%; Riverside and Santa Cruz, both 61.6%; and Merced, 76.5%.
When non-Californians are included in the acceptance rate, UC Berkeley had a slight edge for being the most selective UC campus, offering a spot to 21.2% of all applicants compared with 21.3% at UCLA.
California families are right to be outraged to see their high-achieving children turned down at some campuses while non-residents are getting in, said Patrick Callan, who is president of the Higher Education Policy Institute, a think tank in San Jose.
As California residents and state legislators come to feel less connected to the university, UC will be less likely to have its funding boosted when the economy improves, he said. “It’s a mistake and it’s a disservice to the people of California,” Callan said of the rising ranks of out-of-state students. “I think it is a short-term benefit that really does compromise the university in the long term.” Instead, UC should cut duplications in graduate academic programs, he said.
Jeffery, however, noted that the proportion of non-Californian undergraduates at UC “is still very small and certainly small compared to some other public institutions in other states.” She added that out-of-staters and foreign students add cultural diversity and different perspectives to campuses.
Eight campuses increased their number of admissions offers to non-Californians. Only UC Berkeley, which already attracted controversy for enrolling 30% of its current freshman class from out-of-state, pulled back, cutting those admissions by 12.5%.
UCLA and UC Irvine took in more freshman than anticipated last year and decided to reduce their numbers of admissions offers to California freshmen to compensate for that, officials said. UCLA cut in-state freshman admissions by 15.1% and Irvine by 16.2%, making Irvine appear noticeably more competitive than in the past.
The proportion of Latinos and blacks offered admission to UC rose slightly from last year, to 27.3% and 4.4% respectively. Asian Americans kept nearly the same share, 36.3% while whites declined, reflecting state demographics, from 30.6% to 28.2%.
via UC sees uptick in admissions of foreign, out-of-state students – Los Angeles Times.
via UC sees uptick in admissions of foreign, out-of-state students – Los Angeles Times.
IntrotoCES 
I understand that the state of California is looking for a quick fix since their government cant fund the public school education like they used too. The only way they can do that is by accepting more out-of-state students in order to recieve more admission. Although this is a quick fix, I believe a much better approah would be to accept students solely based off academics. With that being said, many students would be getting into one fo thier first choice schools that they have been dreaming of going to all thier life. Then once they graduate and start their career they will be much more likely to donate to their alma matter. In the long run I believe this would be a much better solution.
I believe that this is a good solution for the UC schools to make up their loss of funds from the government, they are still accepting people that have good credentials and have potential to succeed in their schools. Like it says in the article it also increases cultural diversity by allowing more people from different states and countries to bring their ideas and culture to California. As far as fairness, I see nothing wrong with the colleges are doing, the California schools are among the lowest with students from out of state so improving that is not unfair, in fact I believe it is becoming more fair for all students across the country and world. California students and parents are complaining because they know these are good schools and they don’t want to leave sunny California so they feel entitled to be allowed in the school instead of people outside of California.
Does this argument carry over to affirmative action for underrepresented minorities as well?
Yes the schools have been admitting more minorities as it says in the last paragraph increasing their proportions of students offered admissions of latinos and blacks while whites decreased. Even if the admissions rates went down that does not mean totals went down, like it says they admitted 43% more out-of-state students and 3.6% increase of in-state students meaning that totals for those students were higher than previous years. While it may not be a large increase for the underrepresent minorities, the UC schools are pushing for affirmative action I believe.
This article points out something that has been going on for a long time now in many state Universities, which is to get the right ratios of gender and race.
So what defines the appropriate amount of Asian, Black, White or male or female? The fact that this is even a consideration makes admission for all kinds of people unfair. This is not fair because by trying to create their ideal diversity among the student community they are basing a lot of their admission on traits not based off of intelligence and life skills. It doesn’t seem fair either that the University would make it easier for out of state students to get in over state Residents. Although it is not fair it does make sense for them to be trying to bring up the out of state numbers. Because of the budget cuts from many educational institutions they are now seeking more money and they get more from out of states students.
My grandfather who is a professor at University of Washington told me that the admissions people at UW where also letting in more out of state and international students than ever before and he has been there for a long time. I applied to UW and my grandfather told me that I would not stand much of a chance this year because they have a really low budget and are taking out of state students over residents of the area. This same thing is going on in many other State Universities around the country. I really disagree with the way they are giving certain people better chances based off of amount of money paid to the institution or by their ability to get better diversity.
Bryan: Where in the article does it say: “This article points out something that has been going on for a long time now in many state Universities, which is to get the right ratios of gender and race”? There are no quotas and the article is about how university consider financial issues, pointing to how meritocracy is baseless in many ways, yet we rarely talk about in terms of legacies, financial, etc. How would Schmidt respond to the following: “This is not fair because by trying to create their ideal diversity among the student community they are basing a lot of their admission on traits not based off of intelligence and life skills.”
“proportion of Latinos and blacks offered admission to UC rose slightly from last year, to 27.3% and 4.4% respectively. Asian Americans kept nearly the same share, 36.3% while whites declined”
Ok maybe there are no specific quotas but Affirmative action in schools admission decisions does play a role in bringing in people of different race to make sure that every group is represented in the school community. This is done because it is important for people to interact with other races. In the real world they will have to have those skills and if they never gained those while being raised then they are more likely to discriminate.
Proposition 209 outlawed considering race in CA admissions, so diversity achieved through other mechanisms
I believe it is good to get out of state students, especially out of the country foreign students. This adds massive amounts of diversity and allows students to learn how other cultures work and function. Although the proportions of how this is exploding to be is out of control, universities are needing to accept more out of state students for a larger increase in income to suit the needs of students, staff, and the university as a whole due to inflation and other money issues. Whites are going down in UC, but other racial groups are rising. This is happening due to the need of diversity within the culture of UC. The student body was majority white, and almost no other ethnicities. In order to fix this, these large numbers are being shown to even out the chances for people in all cultures, and of all ethnicities. I do not support the “oh this kid is ethnic, s/he has an SAT score of 800, but we need more diversity so let this kid in.” This seems to be the trend though, which is a good short term fix for a large issue of education and diversity, but will ultimately fail because less educated / more poorly educated individuals are being let into these universities, and will ultimately drop out. Although this isn’t always the case, it will happen for majority if this mind set is placed because SAT/ACT scores and GPA will be bent and more lenient, allowing for more to enter who are not qualified for these schools. Although CA admissions outlawed considering race, there is no way of actually stopping it, it will always happen if we have this mind set of diversity in school over who is qualified for the school.
Why are you assuming that (1) those international and out-of-state students are “adding diversity.” You state the following: “In order to fix this, these large numbers are being shown to even out the chances for people in all cultures, and of all ethnicities. I do not support the ‘oh this kid is ethnic, s/he has an SAT score of 800, but we need more diversity so let this kid in.’ As stated above, it is illegal in CA to consider race at all, so the scenario you lay out would be illegal; there is no evidence that this is what is being done, or (2) that people being let as out-of-state or international students lack of the requisite scores. beyond that, what does Schmidt and the Secrets of the Sat teach us here?
I think this is a prime example of the importance of the dollar, in our culture. There isn’t too much of a stink yet for not accepting as many in-state students as last year, merely because it’s justified as a fiscal strategy. Yet, when the schools were looking at race as a factor for acceptance, it was deemed unfair and amoral. With materialism so important for the culture, we’re often able to use budgetary matters as a means of smokescreening and downplaying important issues like international labor, and even the pockets of near-slave labor in the states. It’s only when the dominant have their potential wealth threatened (like their private school educated son not attending Berkeley, because the school will be selecting more kids from inner-city public schools changing the previous ratio) that they feel outraged against the change. But if it’s for money, oh, that’s another thing.
During high school,I was always told by advisors and counselors,if you sell yourself to a university through your personal statements and through extracurricular,you have a good chance at getting in.now,it seems as those dont matter anymore and they’re solely looking for how your families money can help keep the university funded and remain open,being a first priority vs being a better community and uphold values.
From a business standpoint,yes,its WAY smarter to accept international students an out of state studentd.Why accept tons of in state when all they would do is get cut costs and less funding?
A great first step is opening up the admissions count and accepting out of state also to add diversity and unity.grades and money doesnt portray a persons charachter or ability.
I completely understand from a business point of view why they would do this but in reality don’t you think we should be able to go to our own schools in state? There needs to be more focus on academics and the person applying as an individual rather than where they are from and if they can pay more money. In the long run when people graduate they will most often donate money in support of their school. I do not think it is a good idea to deny the Californian residents access to their own schools in hopes to receive more money.
I believe that the California schools are doing this because they’re are so many people making accusations (that may be right) about them basing most acceptance off of race and not grades. In a business point of view, they are trying to get people who are finically stable and who are right for the school and if they had kids would send them there. Also, like UW they are admitting more out of state/ out of country students because they are getting more funding to try and make up their debt. I believe if schools all around the country or even world are starting to use this method of admitting students, than they should raise the tuition rate of out of state. It should be really ridiculously high where if they can actually afford great. For the in state students, our parents have been spending so much money on taxes that are hopefully funding those state schools so they should be at a much lower tuition. Lastly, I think that public education has been taking a really bad turn and should be trying to head into a better direction. After all, universities are here to better our education.
I think what California schools are doing is unfair. It is giving an advantage to out of state students trying to get it while at the same time creating a disadvantage for in state students trying to get in. I think its wrong that they are giving away some admission spots to out of state students because they pay more, even though some in state students might be overall better. What they are doing is solely on based on raising revenue instead of promoting meritocracy and that goes completely against what schools stand for.
Is there anything “fair” about admission — why and how is this different?
From a money standpoint, accepting more out of state students and international students is a very smart idea and definitely brings in a lot more money. It gives the school more opportunities to expand academically and architecturally. It also gives more opportunities to give out scholarships not only academic but athletic related. This in turn then gives the school a more appealing name and more people will want to apply. However, this system makes it unfair to in state students. I first hand experienced this with my application to UW. I live two minutes away from campus and I always thought I’d be a husky but a couple years ago 51% of UW’s freshman class came from out of state. That percentage kept getting higher. I feel its not very fair that so many out of state get accepted and the students that actually live around the university and are local have a harder chance of getting in. Our parents pay taxes to keep up the university of washington, yet some of their kids don’t get in. Same probably goes for these UC schools. Its a good money maker but i don’t think its right.
Admission is not fair when you purely look at a student from a statistical basis. I think its easy to see that the students who come from wealthier areas/families have had access to a better education, be that through private tutoring, or other means. These students are the ones that, again, based on statistics will look more attractive to a admissions department because they will have higher test scores and their GPA may be boosted by AP classes. However if admission is now also affected by ones environment, I think it becomes “more” fair. A student from a failing school who manages to resist the temptation of drugs and or gang violence, while achieving high scholastic scores, should be a more attractive candidate to a prestigious school. I think this purely on the bases of the amount of adversity that student has faced in their life. Academics is great, but in the right situation almost any student can achieve high standards; However not everyone in a failing inner city school succeeds, those that do I think prove more so than others there dedication and determination to change their lives and that should be rewarded.
I feel that when University’s cut qualified in-state applicants off for out-of-state applicants it is cheating the system. I would feel very outraged to see my highly educated children getting denied access to a University because the government can make more money from out- of – state applicants. I never thought about it before, but it totally makes sense that this has become a huge issue in California given the fact that California schools are very desirable to schools to go to, and I’m sure that with the economic crises being terrible in California, that government officials are tempted to make money in any ways that they can. I have friends and family that go to school at Arizona State University, Arizona State, and University of Oregon that say that there are many students from California that go to their schools because they couldn’t get into any good colleges in California unless their parents were willing to donate tons of money to a school in California. If I were a resident in California I would be outraged after all the taxes that they have paid their whole lives. With the cost of living being so high in California, you’d think that the government would at least cut them some slack by not corrupting the education system. Even as a resident of Washington, hearing about this makes me angry at the government. Seems so much is corrupted these days!
What role does the voters have here for refusing to support tax hikes to pay for cost of higher education. You mention taxes, but that is the issue since the state is giving less and less. What should a school do? More importantly, what does it reveal about admissions?
This is not only an issue for the state of California, but an issue that is nationwide. Due to the failing economy and loss of jobs, many kids have been forced to stay in state because there are not enough funds to send them out of state. This is occurring right here in the state of Washington. The University of Washington is known for accepting a large number of foreign/ out of country students as well as many out of state students. Just as UC is attempting to close the budget gap, so are many other schools throughout the nation, one of which is the UW. In the last few years WSU has upped the number of enrollment as a way of bringing in more money after the federal and state governments decided military and prison funding was and is more important than the education of their children. All schools across the nation are upping enrollment and many are wanting more out of state students because as I just read those students pay about $23,000 more per year than those in state students. However, at this time many cannot afford to send their children out of state, especially if they have more than one child seeking a college education. I am deeply concerned for the education system in America and for the students which fall victim to it.