[junkscience2017]

Schools like Cal are still offering too many slots to foreign students despite being chartered to serve the families of taxpayers who provide their funding.

The same issue will eventually plague Canadian schools...foreign students will simply pay more directly for tuition even though taxpayers are still the core source of funds.

For private universities, no one should care..they should select students from wherever they like. But State schools should exist to serve their residents.

[sbuccini]

Like many things, it's not that quite simple. I would argue that in some ways the charter between the state and the university was broken when the state of California drastically cut funding during the Great Recession and didn't restore it once the budget stabilized.

How can California residents consider it a state resource when its supported primarily by out-of-state/international students paying sticker price and international corporations?

[junkscience2017]

In 1977, education was 27% of the California State budget. In 2008, education was 37% of the California State budget, it is now 42%. And the absolute size of the budget itself is rising. So in fact funding is increasing as a percentage of the budget and in absolute scales.

The only real recent drop was 2007-2008. There is plenty of money available to run UC prudently as a resource for residents...indeed, more than ever before.

Downvote all you want, these are UCs own numbers so they are true regardless of your opinion or angst.

[dragonwriter]

> In 1977, education was 27% of the California State budget. In 2008, education was 37% of the California State budget, it is now 42%. And the absolute size of the budget itself is rising. So in fact funding is increasing as a percentage of the budget and in absolute scales.

Yes, education funding has gone up because of a Constitutional mandate to allocate a certain share of increases to K-14 education; the UC and CSU systems have not been beneficiaries of the increase, each has a much smaller share of the state budget than it used to, and smaller state support per student than it used to.

http://www.ppic.org/publication/higher-education-funding-in-...

[megaman22]

California really needs to bail on Proposition 13...

[bsder]

At the very least, California needs to make business and investment real estate not subject to Proposition 13.

However, you can count on the fact that the business lobbyists will be out EN MASSE to stop any attempt like that.

[vadym909]

even if they just get rid of Prop 13 on rentals and passing the benefit to children- at least a future generation may have a chance to affordability in CA... "Thanks to a state proposition that took effect in 1986, known as the "parent-child reassessment exclusion," a child can inherit a parent's principal residence, whether modest or worth millions, without triggering a reassessment for property taxes."

[mc32]

A question I would have, if I were an international student living in say, California, is why would I pay tuition as a legal immigrant on say a F-1 visa, but if I came in illegally, I would have a chance at getting a subsidy[1]? Could they just pretent to be illegal for the subsidy and then when done just go home on your F-1. It's not like the school would check or even less ask the feds about status.

[1]https://students.ucsd.edu/finances/fees/residence/ab540.html

[sjf]

You can't get an F1 visa without the school knowing, they are sponsoring the visa.

[mc32]

Couldn't you go AWOL and then register as undocumented? Or why not be able to register for Non-Resident Tuition Exemption? Wouldn't that be discriminatory in some sense?

[dragonwriter]

> Couldn't you go AWOL and then register as undocumented? . Well, you can't qualify for DACA without a time machine, so you'd need to estsblish eligibility under AB 540 by spending three years as a California resident attending a California high school to qualify. Having done this, you wouldn't have to pretend to be undocumented, since you'd pretty certainly lose your F-1 status. So, you'd potentially be eligible for in-state tuition—but also potentially eligible for deportation. Plus, unlike an actual good-standing F-1, you’ll have a lot harder time ever getting legal status in the US.

> Wouldn't that be discriminatory in some sense?

Of course it would; every status distinction made in law is “discriminatory in some sense.”

The relevant issue is does it fail to meet the legal standard of legitimacy of purpose and adaptation to that purpose applicable to the basis and nature of discrimination.

[dragonwriter]

> why would I pay tuition as a legal immigrant on say a F-1 visa

No such thing as a “legal immigrant on an F-1 visa”, as an F-1 is a non-immigrant visa and F-1s are non-resident aliens legally prohibited from establishing a US domicile.

> if I came in illegally, I would have a chance at getting a subsidy

The only people who came in illegally who can be considered residents for UC tuition purposes—as stated on the page you link—are those who are qualified for and have been granted status under DACA (a policy established in 2012), which means you had to be brought over as a child under 16, and must have lived in the US since 2007, or those that have attended 3 years of California high school.

> Could they just pretent to be illegal for the subsidy and then when done just go home on your F-1. It's not like the school would check or even less ask the feds about status

Yes, if you claim to be in DACA status, the state will check your DACA status. If you claim to be an undocumented student that attended three years of California high school, they will check your high school records. If you are a foreign student on an F-1, neither one of those is going to work.

[mc32]

I concede it look like DACA has some time requirements most F-1 students would not satisfy (in addition to the entry age req)

Still a non insignificant amount came here on non-immigrant visas also (tourist visas).

In any event, there may be some meat for a class action by international students who may not want to pay the "full-fare" price they pay, given otherwise international students (on expired tourist visas) are eligible for state subsidy.

[dragonwriter]

> I concede it look like DACA has some time requirements most F-1 students would not satisfy (in addition to the entry age req)

Well, plus if you are in a legal status, you aren't eligible for DACA, plud DACA has been closed to new applicants, so literally no one can qualify for it newly now.

> Still a non insignificant amount came here on non-immigrant visas also (tourist visas).

So?

> In any event, there may be some meat for a class action by international students who may not want to pay the "full-fare" price they pay, given otherwise international students (on expired tourist visas) are eligible for state subsidy.

International students (including a very restricted set of undocumented ones) who are residents are eligible for a state subsidy; residency is, however, incompatible with certain immigration statuses that are nonetheless compatible with study, including F-1.

[mc32]

If I were an international student, that's the incongruence I would challenge right there: "residency is, however, incompatible with certain immigration statuses that are nonetheless compatible with study, including F-1."

I'd say give me the same benefits -or at least in-state tuition.

[dragonwriter]

> I'd say give me the same benefits -or at least in-state tuition.

So, you'd declare your intent to establish permanent residency in the State (and therefore the US)?

That sounds a lot like having immigration intent, which can be a basis for revoking your F-1 status.

Not being a resident is the deal you sign on for with F-1 status. If you'd rather take your chances immigrating illegally, spending three years attending California high school, and then trying to go to UC on in-state tuition as a deportable undocumented immigrant when you are qualified to instead get an F-1, well, sure, you can try. No sane person with the option is going to choose that, though. An F-1 with non-resident tuition is a much better deal.

[tanilama]

> is why would I pay tuition as a legal immigrant on say a F-1 visa, but if I came in illegally

You need a bank statement in order to get your I20.

[dragonwriter]

> Schools like Cal are still offering too many slots to foreign students despite being chartered to serve the families of taxpayers who provide their funding.

Taxpayers don't provide their funding, taxpayers provide a partial subsidy of the costs associated with in-state students; this is why their is reduced tuition for such students.

[freeone3000]

Okay, taxpayers provide part of their funding, the remainder of which is through donations and student fees.

[dragonwriter]

> Okay, taxpayers provide part of their funding, the remainder of which is through donations and student fees.

Taxpayers provide part (a declining share and declining real per-student amount) of the funding for in-state students. Why would this subsidy have any bearing on the number of out-of-state slots, which are fully (or more than) self-funded? If taxpayers want more in-state slots, then the taxpayers can fund more in-state slots.

> the remainder of which is through donations and student fees

And research contracts, IP and publishing revenue, etc.

[refurb]

I fail to see how the OP was incorrect at all. A subsidy is funding.

[dragonwriter]

Yes, but “their funding” is not the same as “a part—and a declining part at that—of their funding”.

[anon946]

I can't say for California, but in NYS, out-of-state students are money-makers for the university. In other words, reducing out-of-state students would increase in-state tuition, or result in facilities/services being cut.

[sonabinu]

In most cases if the student is a resident but still international (dependent) of a visa holder, the student still ends up paying international fees. Not fun for the parent/guardian

[jacobolus]

Edit: the downvoters win. Consider my (neutral/non-normative, but apparently controversial) comment deleted/retracted.

Edit #2: If you keep further downvoting a comment that already explicitly says to consider itself deleted, you are a jackass. Please flag it instead.

[inferiorhuman]

Unfortunately both the UC and CSU systems are very top heavy. They've been nickle and diming the students and taxpayers to prop up some obscene salaries for regents and executives. Hell, UCSF outsourced a bunch of its IT staff to HCL (H1B), but hasn't even begun to trim the fat at the top.

Of course another option would be to lean more heavily on private donors like Zuckerberg and Benioff.

[junkscience2017]

No, foreign students are keeping UC corrupt. UC has been plagued by scandal after scandal, horrendous waste, graft, patronage...etc etc

The UC system needs more oversight, not more funny money. Cal had enough money to build a gorgeous football stadium. They have enough money to fund the Chancellor's alleged slush fund.

California residents have an extremely high tax burden. They are doing their part. UC needs to be cleaned up, starting with a renewed focus on their core mission. None of the necessary reforms will happen while California has one-party rule.

[iainmerrick]

You make it sound like foreign students are stealing resources from the US. To the contrary, they pay a lot for the privilege of studying, and they're likely to try to immigrate later -- and even if you're anti-immigration, it's madness to be against young, educated, skilled immigrants who've experienced your country at an impressionable age.

[junkscience2017]

The UC system was created to serve residents of the State. These are publicly funded institutions. They are here to serve the taxpaying public. Private schools exist to serve aspirational foreign students.

If residents feel the system does not serve them, they will defund it, and everyone will be worse off. We have these things called Propositions, and they tend to elicit emotional responses. Most California residents are probably beginning to have a negative impression of UC...most of the news from UC is graft, corruption, etc

[dragonwriter]

> These are publicly funded institutions.

They are institutions which are less and less public funded, and heading in the direction of the fully privatized formerly public institutions in much of the country.

> If residents feel the system does not serve them, they will defund it

They've been effectively defunding UC and CSU for decades through a number of measures, particularly the Prop 98 mandate that forces nominal budget increases to go largely to K-14 education.

That defunding is actually at the root of many of the complaints against UC, including it's reliance on non-resident students and their higher tuition.

[jacobolus]

another neutral/non-normative comment retracted

[saboot]

> The resentment comes because the UC system has a limited enrollment capacity with competitive admissions, and has a mission of educating residents. So when foreign students take some of those enrollment slots, local students who missed the cut feel cheated.

It's competitive, however it is anything but impossible to get admission into a UC. I'd consider the paths to getting in straight forward.

Either in highschool you are in the top 9% of students statewide, or top 9% in your local highschool if the school participates in the program. You are guaranteed an admission to at least one UC campus.

Didn't make it? Most community colleges offer guaranteed transfer agreements where you complete a requirement of classes and GPA, giving you an automatic admission.

And if this is still too much, there is the entire CSU system to consider.

[iainmerrick]

I'd add that meeting and interacting with international students is one of the perks of going to a good university. It expands your worldview.

This is true for business degrees especially -- it's all about making connections with people who can help you in your career for decades afterwards.

I think it applies to science and arts degrees too. Certainly if you stay in academia, having international academic connections can be very useful.

[lern_too_spel]

On the contrary, California's budget is awful because of a combination of Prop 13 and the lack of one party rule. By requiring a supermajority vote for tax changes, Prop 13 all but guaranteed that any additional programs would be funded by ballot initiative, which has forced way too much of California's tax revenue into no longer needed programs and bond repayment. The recent Democrat supermajority has slowly been cleaning up what little of the government remains in control of the legislature.