| |

More Pay Less/Say More from the Legislature

Byuclafaculty
Say less or pay more

A reporter from the Daily Bruin called my attention to the proposed state constitutional amendment that would cap the proportion of out-of-state admissions to UC.  The proposed amendment caps such admissions at 10% of total, on a campus-by-campus basis.  It would require a 2/3 vote to get to the ballot and that is very unlikely to happen and even less likely to happen in time for November 2012.  There is no quid pro quo in this amendment, i.e., so much money in exchange for the cap. The issue of out-of-state admissions has been raised in the last few years precisely because of the funding squeeze on the university. Note that there may well be some legal issues related to UC’s constitutional autonomy.

Some modest advice for those in the legislature:

Below is the amendment:

SENATE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
Introduced  by  Senator Rubio
May 15, 2012
A resolution to propose to the people of the State of California an amendment to the Constitution of the State, by adding Section 9.5 to Article IX thereof, relating to the University of California.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST


SCA 22, as introduced, Rubio. University of California: admission of out-of-state students.

Existing provisions of the California Constitution establish the University of California as a public trust under the administration of the Regents of the University of California. The University of California system includes 10 campuses, which are respectively located in Berkeley, Davis, Irvine, Los Angeles, Merced, Riverside, San Diego, San Francisco, Santa Barbara, and Santa Cruz.

This measure would require the University of California system to modify admissions so that commencing with the 2013–14 academic year, out-of-state undergraduate students, as defined, would constitute more no more than 10% of an incoming class, or more than 10% of the total undergraduate enrollment, at each campus in the University of California system.

Vote required: 2/3   Appropriation: no   Fiscal Committee: yes   Local Program: no  

Resolved by the Senate, the Assembly concurring, That the Legislature of the State of California at its 2011–12 Regular Session commencing on the sixth day of December 2010, two-thirds of the membership of each house concurring, hereby proposes to the people of the State of California, that the Constitution of the State be amended as follows:

First—

 The people of the State of California find and declare all of the following:

(a) California has demonstrated a longstanding commitment to higher education, beginning with the state’s landmark 1960 California Master Plan for Higher Education, which divided public responsibility for postsecondary education among the University of California, the California State University, and the California Community Colleges.
(b) The University of California (UC) has a unique obligation to serve the diverse ethnic and economic needs of the State and provide ample educational opportunities to California residents.
(c) Recently, there has been an alarming trend of the UC system admitting increasing numbers of out-of-state students, thereby limiting opportunities for California residents.
(d) In Fall 2012, the percentage of non-Californians admitted to the UC spiked to more than 23 percent of the freshman class, which was an increase from around 11 percent just three years before.
(e) Between 2009 and 2012, the percentage of foreign and out-of-state students at UC campuses doubled.
(f) The biggest increases in out-of-state students are concentrated at University of California, Berkeley (UC Berkeley), University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), and University of California, San Diego (UCSD), the three most selective and perhaps most widely known UC campuses outside California.
(g) This trend is contrary to the policy of the Regents of the University of California that caps out-of-state undergraduate enrollment at 10 percent systemwide.
(h) While the UC system guarantees admission to the top 9 percent of graduates from participating high schools, an increasing percentage of these graduates are not being offered spots at more competitive schools such as UC Berkeley, UCLA, and UCSD.
(i) While out-of-state students contribute to the diversity of opinions and perspectives on campus, recruiting out-of-state students for the purpose of balancing the UC budget contributes to the perceived privatization of the system and undermines public support for restoring funding.
(j) Residents of California have shown an increased desire to enroll i
n the UC system, as applications from California residents for admission in Fall 2012 rose to 93,298, an increase of 9.8 percent over the preceding year, demonstrating that more California residents would like to attend UC and are being turned away.
(k) The Public Policy Institute of California projects that, by 2025, there will be a deficit of one million educated workers in California unless the state is able to substantially increase rates of college enrollment and graduation.
(l) California cannot close the gap by drawing college-educated workers from elsewhere, and will need to produce more graduates through its state colleges and universities.
(m) Therefore, it is the intent of the people of the State of California to cap admissions of out-of-state undergradate students for each incoming freshman class at each campus of the UC system at 10 percent in order to increase opportunities for California residents.

Second—

 That Section 9.5 is added to Article IX thereof, to read:

SEC. 9.5.

 (a) Commencing with the 2013–14 academic year, out-of-state undergraduate students shall constitute no more than 10 percent of the incoming class, and no more than 10 percent of the total undergraduate enrollment, at each campus in the University of California system.

(b) As used in this section, an “out-of-state undergraduate student” is a student whose residence was outside of California at the time he or she initially applied for enrollment in the University of California.

Similar Posts

  • Faculty call for pause on budget & network security changes at UCLA

    Byhigbie

    Over 250 UCLA faculty, including a large number of department chairs and center directors, have written Chancellor Block with a detailed critique of plans for administrative centralization. The letter follows earlier exchanges between department chairs and Executive Vice Chancellor/Provost Emily Carter and other top administrators. “Although we appreciated the fora that EVC/P Carter recently organized in response to an earlier letter requesting more time to evaluate the re-organization plans she is proposing, we continue to feel that there has been insufficient time or detail to evaluate their consequences and that we have not been adequately involved in the consultation process,”…

  • |

    Report: Affordable Public Higher Education is Possible Today

    Byuclafaculty

    A report this week from Reclaim California Higher Education (a coalition of faculty and student groups) makes the case that affordable (even free) higher education is within reach for California. The privatization experiment has failed. The harm to a generation of hard-working, high-aiming young people is proven. It’s time to return to what works: the proven Master Plan for higher education in California. California, with its own resources, can afford to restore top-quality, accessible, affordable college and university opportunity to every qualified student. In fact, Californians can afford nothing less. You can read a summary and download the entire report…

  • | |

    Jerry Brown Suggests Master Plan is Dated

    Byuclafaculty

    Our previous post covered the Jan. 22 meeting of the Regents’ Committee on Educational Policy.  As noted, there was discussion of the 1960 Master Plan for Higher Education, considered a major accomplishment of Brown’s father when he was governor. Below is a link to Brown’s comments in which he suggested the Plan was now dated.  [youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RmjI4gVync?feature=player_detailpage]

  • | | | | | | | | |

    Tradition!

    Byuclafaculty

    The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) has issued a report on UC and CSU funding.  LAO is usually viewed as a neutral agency.  But it is a component of the legislature.  So it tends to favor approaches that add to legislative control as opposed to, say, gubernatorial control.  This report is no exception. LAO seems to want to return to what it terms the “traditional” approach to funding, but with bells and whistles added to monitor legislative goals.  The traditional approach seems to be one focused on undergraduate enrollment.  But in fact the tradition – such as it is – has…

  • |

    7 Wasn’t So Lucky

    Byuclafaculty

    The cash statement from the California state controller for the first seven months of fiscal year 2013-14 is out.  Revenues are up about 1% from last year at this time.  That gain is not very good.  However, it may be largely due to an aberration last fiscal year when there was a surge of personal income tax revenue in January 2013.  The surge seemed to have something to do with antics back then in Washington over fiscal cliffs, etc., which might have resulted in some tax changes (but didn’t).  The current DC crisis de jour is the debt ceiling, but…