5 ms·

The review that was done awhile ago showed that nonresidents reduced the amount of residents in the program, any attempt to merely walk-over the issue is a sign

The review that was done awhile ago showed that nonresidents reduced the amount of residents in the program, any attempt to merely walk-over the issue is a sign that you are lying and speaking in poor faith. As if there never was any negative set of circumstances that could be predicated fundamentally on the idea that <outsiders> did in <Californian Residents/Insiders> people from here, all that talk, and all that pretense when you rap to just your favorite music video......

scythe 10y ago
>The review that was done awhile ago showed that nonresidents reduced the amount of residents in the program Cf. what the audit actually found: >The audit found that out-of-state applicants benefited from lowered admission standards [italics mine], while California students increasingly were turned away from their campus of choice. The only reason to give out-of-state students lower admission standards than in-state students is if you're not merely admitting them but preferring them, and the obvious motive in preferring out-of-state students is that they pay five times as much if not more in tuition compared to in-state students. One way to evaluate proposed solutions to problems is "can the proposed solution solve the problem?"; if the out-of-state enrollment in 2006 was 5.5% and in 2016 was 15% and the cap is 20% (these are the real numbers) then obviously the proposed solution cannot solve the problem and it is frankly questionable whether it is even a legitimate attempt to solve the problem. It appears to instead be a way to politically grandstand by scapegoating the UC admissions departments and the out-of-state students instead of admitting there's a funding problem. The $18M in funding is also a pittance: >UC spokeswoman Dianne Klein said the proposed policy balanced the needs of California students with the benefits that nonresident students bring — diverse perspectives as well as millions in additional tuition revenue, which added up to nearly $550 million in 2016-17. Increasing the proportion of out-of-state students by 1% here appears to bring in about $50 million. There is not even a clear financial incentive for the UC system to bother following this directive! They would make more money by ignoring it. The financial data indicates that the UC system will likely ignore this directive. Considering that the State used a tiny carrot instead of a big stick, they probably know this. If the State were serious in addressing this problem they could threaten to fine the UC system for discriminating against local students as was found in the audit. However this would kill the "golden goose" and result in drastic underfunding of the system because out-of-state students are currently covering a budget gap way bigger than this proposal could ever address. So the legislature is not going to do that. They made this proposal to rile up gullible Californian nativists who think outsiders are the source of all their problems, and you fell for it.
- eruditely 10y ago
  No it wasn't members of the Californian assembly immediately moved to counter-act the program, we only had to to this because our budget was in dire straights, it was an emergency programme, you are acting like that this was a straight +E.V. operation, however if it was necessarily a straight +E.V. operation it would have likely been enacted in an environment that was non-emergency, however it wasn't, which shows that the state assembly when it really came down to it acted because it was a hail mary maneuver and that it really came down to needing $$$$$ if anyone remembers how those days felt. And they quickly acted to remove such deficits. You are pretending that this was a no-brainer certain investment, this is an investment that produced significant gains, but the fact is that there should not exist any no-loss m, positive investments that make money without having some rebounding consequence anywhere else, otherwise this would have already been an investment taken, and because of the "No easy money clause" (E. Thorpe) related to investments and the literature on interest rates(LITERALLY the return on capital) we know that this is false. You are trying to cite empirical evidence to lend warrant toward the thesis that this little out of state admissions thing was a very good thing with no downside, but as far as I know there are many no-go theorems or prohibition statements on that actually. As if there was that much free money and free wealth to be created from one decision that was an effective positive creation of wealth without any subtractive element on it! There is simply no way that this decision was just sitting for us to take that provided this much of a net benefit, far above the rate of market returns. As if we are supposed to dignify a statement that acts like that space something operating in real time and space cannot be taken up and filled by the admission of out of state students and that this could not be filled up....... i'm sure your local taco stand doesn't fill up with the late-nite party bus of whomever out of towners comes to order food. We're all able to order right away baby, man, this is great.
- yorwba 10y ago
  Could an in-state student pay the out-of-state tuition to also benefit from the lowered admission standards?

scythe 10y ago

>The review that was done awhile ago showed that nonresidents reduced the amount of residents in the program Cf. what the audit actually found: >The audit found that out-of-state applicants benefited from lowered admission standards [italics mine], while California students increasingly were turned away from their campus of choice. The only reason to give out-of-state students lower admission standards than in-state students is if you're not merely admitting them but preferring them, and the obvious motive in preferring out-of-state students is that they pay five times as much if not more in tuition compared to in-state students. One way to evaluate proposed solutions to problems is "can the proposed solution solve the problem?"; if the out-of-state enrollment in 2006 was 5.5% and in 2016 was 15% and the cap is 20% (these are the real numbers) then obviously the proposed solution cannot solve the problem and it is frankly questionable whether it is even a legitimate attempt to solve the problem. It appears to instead be a way to politically grandstand by scapegoating the UC admissions departments and the out-of-state students instead of admitting there's a funding problem. The $18M in funding is also a pittance: >UC spokeswoman Dianne Klein said the proposed policy balanced the needs of California students with the benefits that nonresident students bring — diverse perspectives as well as millions in additional tuition revenue, which added up to nearly $550 million in 2016-17. Increasing the proportion of out-of-state students by 1% here appears to bring in about $50 million. There is not even a clear financial incentive for the UC system to bother following this directive! They would make more money by ignoring it. The financial data indicates that the UC system will likely ignore this directive. Considering that the State used a tiny carrot instead of a big stick, they probably know this. If the State were serious in addressing this problem they could threaten to fine the UC system for discriminating against local students as was found in the audit. However this would kill the "golden goose" and result in drastic underfunding of the system because out-of-state students are currently covering a budget gap way bigger than this proposal could ever address. So the legislature is not going to do that. They made this proposal to rile up gullible Californian nativists who think outsiders are the source of all their problems, and you fell for it.

eruditely 10y ago
No it wasn't members of the Californian assembly immediately moved to counter-act the program, we only had to to this because our budget was in dire straights, it was an emergency programme, you are acting like that this was a straight +E.V. operation, however if it was necessarily a straight +E.V. operation it would have likely been enacted in an environment that was non-emergency, however it wasn't, which shows that the state assembly when it really came down to it acted because it was a hail mary maneuver and that it really came down to needing $$$$$ if anyone remembers how those days felt. And they quickly acted to remove such deficits. You are pretending that this was a no-brainer certain investment, this is an investment that produced significant gains, but the fact is that there should not exist any no-loss m, positive investments that make money without having some rebounding consequence anywhere else, otherwise this would have already been an investment taken, and because of the "No easy money clause" (E. Thorpe) related to investments and the literature on interest rates(LITERALLY the return on capital) we know that this is false. You are trying to cite empirical evidence to lend warrant toward the thesis that this little out of state admissions thing was a very good thing with no downside, but as far as I know there are many no-go theorems or prohibition statements on that actually. As if there was that much free money and free wealth to be created from one decision that was an effective positive creation of wealth without any subtractive element on it! There is simply no way that this decision was just sitting for us to take that provided this much of a net benefit, far above the rate of market returns. As if we are supposed to dignify a statement that acts like that space something operating in real time and space cannot be taken up and filled by the admission of out of state students and that this could not be filled up....... i'm sure your local taco stand doesn't fill up with the late-nite party bus of whomever out of towners comes to order food. We're all able to order right away baby, man, this is great.
yorwba 10y ago
Could an in-state student pay the out-of-state tuition to also benefit from the lowered admission standards?