A report in the LA Times today indicates that UCLA has the sixth largest contingent of foreign students (at all levels) in the US. USC has the largest. No other UC is on the list of the top 20 universities ranked by number of foreign students. The listing is below:
Total Int’l Students
1 University of Southern California Los Angeles CA 8,615
2 University of Illinois - Urbana-Champaign Champaign IL 7,991
3 New York University New York NY 7,988
4 Purdue University - Main Campus West Lafayette IN 7,562
5 Columbia University New York NY 7,297
6 University of California - Los Angeles Los Angeles CA 6,249
7 Ohio State University - Main Campus Columbus OH 6,082
8 University of Michigan - Ann Arbor Ann Arbor MI 5,995
9 Michigan State University East Lansing MI 5,748
10 Harvard University Cambridge MA 5,594
11 Indiana University - Bloomington Bloomington IN 5,471
12 Boston University Boston MA 5,464
13 University of Florida Gainesville FL 5,393
14 University of Texas - Austin Austin TX 5,323
15 Penn State University - University Park University Park PA 5,207
16 Northeastern University Boston MA 5,187
17 SUNY University at Buffalo Buffalo NY 5,185
18 University of Minnesota - Twin Cities Minneapolis MN 5,124
19 Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta GA 4,943
Samantha Schaefer, 2011-10-30 Orange County Register
Over the past 10 years, the proportion of middle-income students attending the University of California has declined at nearly twice the rate of California middle-income households, while the share of lower- and upper-income UC students has risen. Some analysts suggest the trend stems from repeated hikes in UC tuition costs, coupled with limited access to many kinds of aid for middle-income students, who are increasingly incurring larger and larger loan debt. "We've got some significant problems here," said William Tierney, USC Rossier School of Education professor, Wilbur-Kieffer professor of higher education and director of Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis. "Tuition is rising faster than people can keep up with it because family salaries are not rising as fast. ... It's not simply that there are more people out of work and can't find jobs, but people's salaries are staying flat."
UC officials say they believe the trend mostly stems from a shift in California's overall demographic, perhaps magnified because the population of UC-eligible students is uneven across income brackets…
Over the past 10 years, the UC has seen a 9 percent decrease in the proportion of middle-income students, while the proportions of lower- and higher-income students have grown by equal shares, according to the university's 2011 Accountability Report. Most of decrease came for upper middle income families earning $99,000 to $149,000 – 6 percent – with students from families earning $55,000 to $99,000 declining by 3 percent. But the declines don't align precisely with the fee increases.
The UC tracks the proportion of students from different income levels every year. During the recession in the early 1990s, low-income families increased in California as well as at the UC, the accountability report states. But the decline in middle-income students has continued even in years when there were no tuition hikes…
UC's new admissions rules confuse applicants: The SAT subject exams are no longer required. If students take them anyway, good scores can help but poor scores won't hurt, administrators say. (except)
Larry Gordon, LA Times, 10/24/11
…(T)he new rules have caused widespread confusion and anxiety among students about whether to take the supplemental tests known as SAT subject exams.{Note from yours truly: These tests are the subject exams, not the regular SAT which remains required.} To boost their chances of UC admission, thousands of high school seniors are taking the subject exams even though the university has dropped them as a requirement, starting with applications for next fall. UC still requires scores from the main SAT test or its rival, the ACT.
Good subject test scores in any discipline will be a "plus factor" in a freshman application, similar to musical ability or club leadership, UC officials say. Not taking them or doing poorly won't eliminate anyone, they emphasize.
Many high school students and counselors contend that is a bewilderingly mixed message. If taking the subject tests helps some students, they ask, won't not taking them potentially hurt others in the zero sum game of admissions? Adding to the uncertainty is that several UC engineering and science programs recommend subject tests in math and science…
To help clear up confusion, UC officials have been explaining the reforms at meetings of high school counselors and administrators around the state. After a recent session in Anaheim, several counselors said they still felt unsettled."They kept saying that the subject tests are not required but could help. What does that mean? It is a little nebulous," said Jared Fulton, acting assistant principal and a counselor at Los Amigos High School in Orange County. "You could argue both ways on what we heard."
As readers of this blog will know, opponents of a bill that might have (not at all clear) weakened the anti-affirmative action Prop 209 - which applies to public university admissions, organized a bake sale at UC-Berkeley which caused much controversy on that campus. Governor Brown has now vetoed that bill.
Jerry Brown vetoes bill to let colleges consider race, gender
10/8/11 Capitol Alert
Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed legislation today that would have allowed the University of California and California State University systems to consider race, ethnicity and gender in student admissions.
The interpretation of Proposition 209, which prohibits the use of race- or gender-based preferences in hiring, contracting and admissions, is a matter for the courts - not the Legislature - to decide, he said. The matter is the subject of pending litigation.
"I wholeheartedly agree with the goal of this legislation," the Democratic governor said in a veto message. "Proposition 209 should be interpreted to allow UC and CSU to consider race and other relevant factors in their admissions policies to the extent permitted under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. In fact, I have submitted briefs in my capacities as both governor and attorney general strongly urging the courts to adopt such an interpretation."However, he wrote, "Our constitutional system of separation of powers requires that the courts - not the Legislature - determine the limits of Proposition 209." …
Gov. Jerry Brown today signed legislation allowing undocumented immigrant college students to receive public financial aid, marking California's relatively liberal ground in a bitter row over immigration nationwide.The California Dream Act allows access to public financial aid, including Cal Grants, for undocumented students who came to the country before turning 16 and attended California high schools. Those students already are eligible for in-state tuition, and Brown in July signed a companion measure affording them access to private financial aid…
Brown, a Democrat, supported the act during last year's gubernatorial campaign, and his signature was all but certain. He had negotiated amendments to the bill, Assembly Bill 131, to reduce costs, excluding graduates of technical and adult schools and delaying implementation until January 2013.
…The program's expansion is expected to cost the state $23 million to $40 million annually.
…Republican Assemblyman Tim Donnelly said the legislation would encourage illegal immigration and force students who are in the country legally to compete with undocumented immigrants for public resources… Donnelly, of Twin Peaks, is setting up a website, "STOP the Nightmare Act," and pledged to launch a referendum campaign.
Gov. Brown has until Sunday to decide to sign or veto the remaining bills on his desk.Among them is SB 185 – the bill that sparked the anti-affirmative action “bake sale” at UC-Berkeley.
It is unclear what the governor will do, although the speculation yours truly has seen so far suggests he will sign it.On the other hand, recent vetoes suggest he is reluctant to fiddle with California’s direct democracy.(He vetoed legislation that would have indirectly impeded use of paid signature gatherers, for example.)And the delay in announcing what he will do suggests the governor is having trouble deciding on SB 185.The LA Times today runs an editorial saying the paper opposes the ban of Prop 209 on affirmative action in public university admissions but also opposes what it terms a “backdoor” way to get around the ban.
Backdoor affirmative action (excerpt)
As much as this page exhorted Californians to vote against Proposition 209 in 1996, the constitutional amendment that bars affirmative action in state hiring and admissions at public colleges is now the law, having survived numerous legal challenges. A bill passed by the Legislature this year that would allow the University of California and California State University to "consider" race, gender and so forth in the admissions process is a clear attempt to flout that law. Gov. Jerry Brown should veto SB 185, which would thwart the will of the voters even if it survived a certain legal challenge…
Sen. Ed Hernandez (D-West Covina) told Times reporters that SB 185 was not in conflict with Proposition 209 because it would only allow universities to consider those factors rather than give preference to them. In fact, the bill specifically says that "no preference shall be given." But that's doublespeak. Why would an admissions committee consider race, gender or national origin if not to factor them into its decisions? Indeed, the actual wording of the bill makes it clear that admissions directors wouldn't just be chatting aimlessly about applicants' backgrounds…
An earlier post on the UC-Berkeley affirmative action "bake sale" controversy noted that the issue that sparked that controversy was a bill - now on Gov. Brown's desk - that would possibly relax the ban on affirmative action in UC student admissions enacted by voters in Prop 209. However, there are other changes in admissions standards underway that have received less attention in the news media. And another bill on the governor's desk is involved. See below:
UC turns career tech ed-friendly (excerpt)
9/30/11, John Fensterwald - Educated Guess
A decade ago, 258 career technical education courses counted toward satisfying requirements for admission to the California State University or the University of California. Today, the number has grown to 9,079 courses, closing in on the 2012 goal of 10,000 courses that the Legislature set several years ago.
The numbers reflect a dramatic shift in the mindset toward CTE (Career Technical Education) by the University of California, whose faculty determines which courses meet A-G, the 15 subjects that all students must pass to apply to a four-year state university. They dispel the myth that UC discourages the submission of CTE courses for A-G approval...
In years past, it’s been true that UC professors, as definers of rigor, looked down their noses at applied learning. But that has changed, as UC felt pressure from the top – the Legislature, led by Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg – and the bottom – a groundswell from high schools, encouraged by the Irvine Foundation – to expand CTE and inject real-world learning into academic courses.
…Business Algebra II was created over a four-day retreat at Lake Arrowhead in May. It was organized by the University of California Curriculum Integration Institute, which brings together CTE and academic high school teachers, UC professors, and education experts to design courses that cross disciplines. One of Steinberg’s bills, SB 611, now sitting on Gov. Jerry Brown’s desk, would write the Institute into law and expand the course offerings, as state money permits…
Nanette Asimov, San Francisco Chronicle, Sept. 24, 2011
A Facebook post announcing plans by a UC Berkeley Republican group to sell baked goods priced according to race, gender and ethnicity - "White/Caucasian" pastries for $2 and "Black/African American" pastries for 75 cents, for example - has drawn outrage on campus… The campus Republicans, who expect to go forward with their "Increase Diversity Bake Sale" on Tuesday, say the event is meant to mock an effort by the student government to drum up support for SB185, a bill to let the University of California and the California State University consider ethnicity in student admissions. It's awaiting approval or veto by Gov. Jerry Brown. "Our bake sale will be at the same time and location of a phone bank which will be making calls to urge Gov. Brown to sign the bill," posted six students who created the Facebook page. The purpose "is to offer another view to this policy of considering race in university admissions. The pricing structure of the baked goods is meant to be satirical."…
The article above does not go into the background of the bill – SB185 – which seems to have sparked this episode. Voters passed Prop 209 in 1996 which bans affirmative action in public university admissions. On the face of it, SB185 seems in potential conflict with Prop 209. News accounts indicate that Ward Connerly, the former UC regent who sponsored Prop 209, threatened to sue if SB185 was enacted and implemented. (Any legal types who read this blog are welcome to comment on that issue.)
I have found an Academic Senate document dated March 15, 2011 which recommends that UC remain neutral about SB185:
The document makes brief mention of Prop 209 but points to other steps UC has adopted since Prop 209 was approved by voters. It suggests that UC might work with the author of SB185 to improve the bill in some way. Whether there were such interactions and whether the bill was modified since that time as a result, I do not know.
Below is the official summary of the bill. Note that the legislative history provided indicates amendments were made along the way, although these may not have been as a result of any UC consultations. The full text of the bill is at
PASSED THE SENATE SEPTEMBER 1, 2011; PASSED THE ASSEMBLY AUGUST 29, 2011; AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JULY 7, 2011; AMENDED IN SENATE MAY 3, 2011; AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 4, 2011
INTRODUCED BY Senator Hernandez (Coauthor: Assembly Member Lara) FEBRUARY 7, 2011
An act to amend Section 66205 of the Education Code, relating to public postsecondary education.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST SB 185, Hernandez. Public postsecondary education. Existing law, the Donahoe Higher Education Act, sets forth, among other things, the missions and functions of California's public and independent segments of higher education, and their respective institutions of higher education. Existing law establishes the University of California, under the administration of the Regents of the University of California, and the California State University, under the administration of the Trustees of the California State University, as 2 of the public segments of postsecondary education.
Provisions of the Donahoe Higher Education Act apply to the University of California only to the extent that the regents act, by resolution, to make these provisions applicable. A provision of the act expresses legislative intent with respect to the determination of standards and criteria for admission to the University of California and the California State University.
This bill would authorize the University of California and the California State University to consider race, gender, ethnicity, and national origin, along with other relevant factors, in undergraduate and graduate admissions, to the maximum extent permitted by the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, Section 31 of Article I of the California Constitution, and relevant case law.
The bill would require the trustees, and request the regents, to report in writing to the Legislature and the Governor by November 1, 2013, on the implementation of the bill. The bill would require these reports to include information relative to the number of students admitted, disaggregated by race, gender, ethnicity, national origin, geographic origin, and household income, and compared to the prior 2 years of admissions. == It is not known whether Gov. Brown will sign the bill. He has been critical of the legislature passing too many bills in recent days. == For those interested in the earlier history: Prop 209 was preceded by passage by the Regents of a ban on affirmative action. Once the Regents had passed the new rule, there was a campaign for the statewide Prop 209 which encompassed more than just UC and more than just student admissions. A news report on the original regents’ action can be found below:
Yours truly made the chart above from data contained in a report by the National Center for Educational Statistics. (I was pointed to the report by Inside Higher Ed.) The chart comes from Table 15 of the report. For California, it suggests that the pool of [public school] high school grads in California will shrink in the coming years. I found some anomalies in the data projections elsewhere in the report for California and am not an expert in this area. Of course, for UC, the pool of potential undergrad admits is not limited to California or to public schools.
Nonetheless, if there are any experts in this area that can interpret the data, they are encouraged to comment.
UC Davis unveils major initiative to increase size of student body
Sep. 21, 2011, Dale Kasler, Sacramento Bee
Calling it a response to the dramatic drop in state funding, UC Davis' chancellor today announced a plan to increase the campus' undergraduate population by one fifth, one of the biggest leaps in years.The vision outlined by Chancellor Linda Katehi would swell the school's undergraduate population to around 29,000 within five years. The total student population would rise to 37,000, surpassing Berkeley and making Davis the second most populous University of California campus, behind UCLA.Speaking at the annual convocation to mark the start of the school year, Katehi portrayed the increase as a move toward greater financial stability in an era of declining state financial support. Reviewing the recent dismal history of budget cuts, tuition hikes and layoffs and furloughs, she said "we will take control of our destiny…
The school said it's in the early stages of studying whether it can add the students and faculty…
The LA Times today runs an editorial lamenting UC tuition increases and increased admission of out-of-state students. See below for an excerpt in italics.
But the editorial goes on to tell UC to pre-commit to reversals of these actions if the budget approves, apparently according to a formula.
What in fact needs to happen is not unilateral action by UC but rather a negotiation between the governor, legislative leaders, Dept. of Finance, Legislative Analyst, interest groups, and UC in which future understandings are worked out.
One-way pre-commitments are not the way to go. Yours truly has not noticed that the LA Times has pre-committed to hire back laid off staff or restore lost quality according to formula should its revenues improve. The University of California cannot afford to be quite the institution it has been for decades: the provider of an easily affordable yet world-class higher education for California's top high school graduates. Tuition is rising frighteningly fast, possibly to more than $12,000, compared with about $8,000 just three years ago. And now even the "California" part has been somewhat diminished as the university system offers spots to more nonresidents in order to receive the extra tuition money they pay. The changes, painful as they are, are justifiable ways to cope with reduced funding while preserving UC's reputation.
...As an advisory panel recommended, the university must not accept out-of-state and foreign students who do not meet high admissions criteria. The extra money might be tempting, but lower standards would reduce UC's reputation, the very thing it is trying to prevent by enrolling nonresidents.
Even worse would be for this temporary admissions change to open the door to a permanent policy under which UC's undergraduate programs are no longer primarily for California students. UC leaders should publicly commit to reversing course once the state's budget picture improves to certain, predefined levels. A chief reason California taxpayers commit so much money to the university is so that it will fulfill its lofty mission of providing bachelor's degrees to this state's outstanding young scholars.
Undoubtedly, the bill - if enacted - would end up at the California Supreme Court.
Bill allowing UC, CSU to consider race, gender, economic background in admissions passes key committee (excerpt)
Beige Luciano-Adams, San Gabriel Valley Tribune, 07/05/2011
A bill authored by Sen. Ed Hernandez, D-West Covina, that would allow public universities to factor race, ethnicity, gender and economic status in student admissions passed the Assembly's Higher Education Committee on Tuesday by a 5-3 vote. According to Hernandez, the purpose of Senate Bill 185 is to address a significant drop in minority enrollment at both UC and CSU campuses - particularly among Latinos and African Americans - since the passage of Proposition 209 in 1996.Proposition 209 prohibits public institutions from considering students' race, ethnicity, sex or other categories…
Because it could cost the state money if it were to trigger a legal challenge on the basis of Proposition 209, the bill must be approved by the Assembly's appropriations committee.Both houses approved a similar bill by Hernandez last year before then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed it. Gov. Jerry Brown's office said he would not comment on the bill before it reaches his desk. However, as attorney general in 2009, Brown filed a brief challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 209, arguing it violates the Equal Protection Clause to the extent that it bars race-or gender-conscious programs permissible under the 14th Amendment.
At their upcoming July meeting, the Regents will receive projected undergrad admissions and enrollment data.California residents – while still the heavy majority of projected incoming students – are declining as a percent of total new enrollment.Applications were up but in-state admits, both as freshmen and as community college transfers, were flat.The report is available at http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/regents/regmeet/jul11/e1.pdf
As the budget squeeze continues, UC increasingly will likely turn away in-state residents knocking on the admissions door:
