(02-22-2021 06:30 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(02-22-2021 12:50 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-22-2021 11:33 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(02-20-2021 08:13 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-20-2021 07:25 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  1. Reduce the number of seats for PRC students in the UC system by 40,000
-- open these up for fully qualified California students

The total number of non-US students at UC campuses is about 41,000. (source) You want to eliminate 98% of the non-US students?

Also, whatever percentage you eliminate, if you replace those places one-for-one with California residents paying California resident tuition -- and getting financial aid -- then you're creating a significant revenue shortfall that you have to replace somehow.

What they need to do is raise tuition dramatically for those non-US students. Use them as a revenue generator. Then use the revenue to build more capacity for in-state students.

They could raise non-US tuition somewhat. Right now UC nonresident tuition is about 44,000; at some other states' top public universities it's over 50,000. If there was a non-US tuition of, say, 65,000, that could raise money. Of course if you went really high, like 100,000, those overseas students would just go elsewhere.

To increase undergraduate capacity significantly, the state would need to open another UC campus and expand the only two that have room for significant growth, Riverside and Merced.

I was under the impression that their goal was to grow Davis and San Diego. At least that was the plan a couple years ago (when they announced a paltry expansion by 10,000 students system-wide).

Davis has 5,300 acres and San Diego has almost 2,000. That's plenty of room to grow both from their current 40,000 to 60,000 without batting an eye.

For comparison, UCF has 69,000 students on about 1,400 acres. Arizona State's main campus has 50,000 students on 604 acres.

Davis has land, you're right. They could add both academic buildings and housing. I'm not sure about San Diego. Does that acreage include the medical center?

I think the regents told each campus a few years ago to increase undergraduate enrollment by 10 percent, I assume that's without any new buildings.

(02-22-2021 09:46 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-22-2021 06:30 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(02-22-2021 12:50 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-22-2021 11:33 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(02-20-2021 08:13 PM)Wedge Wrote:  The total number of non-US students at UC campuses is about 41,000. (source) You want to eliminate 98% of the non-US students?

Also, whatever percentage you eliminate, if you replace those places one-for-one with California residents paying California resident tuition -- and getting financial aid -- then you're creating a significant revenue shortfall that you have to replace somehow.

What they need to do is raise tuition dramatically for those non-US students. Use them as a revenue generator. Then use the revenue to build more capacity for in-state students.

They could raise non-US tuition somewhat. Right now UC nonresident tuition is about 44,000; at some other states' top public universities it's over 50,000. If there was a non-US tuition of, say, 65,000, that could raise money. Of course if you went really high, like 100,000, those overseas students would just go elsewhere.

To increase undergraduate capacity significantly, the state would need to open another UC campus and expand the only two that have room for significant growth, Riverside and Merced.

I was under the impression that their goal was to grow Davis and San Diego. At least that was the plan a couple years ago (when they announced a paltry expansion by 10,000 students system-wide).

Davis has 5,300 acres and San Diego has almost 2,000. That's plenty of room to grow both from their current 40,000 to 60,000 without batting an eye.

For comparison, UCF has 69,000 students on about 1,400 acres. Arizona State's main campus has 50,000 students on 604 acres.

Davis has land, you're right. They could add both academic buildings and housing. I'm not sure about San Diego. Does that acreage include the medical center?

I think the regents told each campus a few years ago to increase undergraduate enrollment by 10 percent, I assume that's without any new buildings.

No idea about where that acreage is. I just googled it. I know some of their campus has canyons in it too, which would increase construction costs.

But ASU has more students on less than 1/3 the land. And they have a football stadium and the eastern half of Hayden Butte that takes up more than 10% of their land.

Cincinnati has 47,000 students on about 195 acres. That includes a major hospital and a football stadium. And it's a very hilly campus, too; they've built around the hills nicely over the years.

UCSD has expanded a lot recently. They've added almost 11,000 students since 2012 (9 years). They're bigger than SDSU now. A few more years like this and they'll be bigger than Berkeley or UCLA.

Point is: land isn't a problem. All that is needed to expand is political will.

By way of background, Cal Poly Pomona was the southern campus of SLO from 1938-1966 when they became independent from each other. Pomona is definitely the little brother. I graduated from Pomona in 1995. In the inland empire, Cal Poly means Pomona. In the greater Los Angeles they ask "which one." Everywhere else, Cal Poly means SLO. I feel I am misleading a bit if I just say I went to Cal Poly. The name boosts Pomona's reputation for SLO's status. I understand why California State schools would want the association.