(Any thoughts from UCLA about this issue?)
Media Release from UC-Berkeley Below:
Chancellor expresses concerns about proposed constitutional amendment
Public Affairs, UC-Berkeley, May 24, 2012
A message from Chancellor Birgeneau
On May 16, California state Sen. Michael Rubio introduced a proposed
amendment to the state’s constitution that would restrict the enrollment of
out-of-state and international students on University of California campuses to
10 percent of undergraduate enrollment. If cleared for the ballot by both
houses of the Legislature and passed by voters this November, Senate
Constitutional Amendment 22 would take effect in the fall of 2013. Its
provisions would mandate that at least 90 percent of every incoming
undergraduate class, on each of the UC campuses, be comprised of in-state
students.
While passage of the amendment is far from certain, the proposed
legislation has already attracted significant opposition. Critics, including
university officials, say that the amendment poses a direct threat to
university autonomy by enabling the legislature to dictate admissions policies.
Others, including myself, have cited a long list of unintended consequences
that would result from passage. In addition to enriching the educational
experience of California students, non-residents represent a crucial revenue
stream for the campus. The loss of funding generated by non-residents would
mean a reduction of funds available for financial aid provided to in-state
students including especially middle class and undocumented students, increased
pressure to raise in-state tuition, and reduced access to required gateway
courses that would in turn mean longer times to graduation for California
students. Importantly, increasing the percentage of out-of-state and international
students to 20 percent of undergraduate enrolment does not eliminate slots for
Californians on the Berkeley campus.
Since the amendment’s introduction, representatives of the university
and other, independent organizations have been contacting legislators to ensure
that they understand the full extent of the amendment’s potential impact on a
UC system that has been forced to deal with unprecedented cuts in state
funding. Earlier this week I sent the following letter to Senator Rubio, the
amendment’s author:
=====================
The Honorable Michael Rubio
California State Senate
State Capitol, Room 2066
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Senator Rubio:
I write to express my deep concern over Senate Constitutional Amendment
22 (SCA 22), a proposed constitutional amendment that would limit non-resident
enrollment to 10% at each UC campus. I believe that we share the common goal of
providing a high-quality, accessible education at UC Berkeley for California’s
most promising students as well as bringing to our state extraordinarily
talented young people who would make great global ambassadors for the State and
prospective future citizens of California. We both want these students to be
able to contribute fully to the economic and social vitality of our state.
Unfortunately, SCA 22 would have unintended consequences that would make it
extremely difficult to achieve what I believe to be our common goals.
Our policy of increasing non-resident undergraduate enrollment to 20%
of our student body is crucial to ensuring a predictable and reliable revenue
stream and maintaining affordability for our California students while also
enriching the educational experience for our students. Students from other
parts of the United States, and from around the world, are valuable members of
the Cal community and it has been my long-held view that an increase in
out-of-state and international undergraduate students is a critical educational
goal at Berkeley. In addition to generating funds for educational support and
financial aid, they also bring perspectives, experiences, and cultures to the
campus, that benefit all students.
A fundamental feature of our enrollment strategy is that non-resident
students do not displace California students. Specifically, we enroll more
California students now than we did in 2003, when the State provided nearly
twice the amount of funding for UC Berkeley than it does at the present time.
We are committed to maintaining that level of resident enrollment (21,000
California residents) moving forward. This means that we are meeting our
commitment to the Master Plan for California residents and we intend to do so
for the indefinite future, barring a continuing collapse in state funding of
UC. Importantly, the out-of-state and international students are accommodated
by an increase in the size of our undergraduate student body, not by
eliminating slots for Californians.
So, what would the consequences be for our California undergraduate
students at Berkeley if the number of out-of-state and international students
were capped at 10%? First, this would lead to a shortfall in revenue of nearly
$60,000,000 which would inevitably have to be made up by an increase in
tuition. This would amount to about $3,000 per student, thence increasing the
burden on Californian students to a near intolerable level. For Berkeley
undergraduates who must take out loans this would increase their indebtedness
on graduation from the current value of $16,000 to as much as $28,000.
Second, we would have to eliminate our recently announced middle class
access financial aid plan (MCAP). MCAP provides substantial financial aid to
students from families whose incomes range from $80,000 to $140,000; it also
guarantees these students that their costs will not go up during their time as
undergraduates. Berkeley is the only public university in the country which
offers such financial aid to middle class students. This program would no longer
be affordable.
Third, Berkeley has led the way in California in providing substantial
financial aid to undocumented students, made legal by AB 130; this would also
be no longer affordable. Specifically, we would not be able to provide support
in place of federal Pell Grants since Californian undocumented students remain
ineligible for federal aid in spite of the passage of AB 130 and AB 131. As you
know, Assemblyman Cedillo and I worked hard to ensure the passage and signing
of those two bills and it would be a tragedy if our undocumented students would
remain so disadvantaged.
Fourth, it would become significantly more difficult for California
residents to graduate in four years; before our increase in the number of
out-of-state and international students many of our large gateway courses were
heavily impacted. We have been able to
expand enrollments in our science, social science and language gateway courses
using the resources provided by the increased tuition paid by our out-of-state
and international students. This would
no longer be possible.
I could go on but I believe that these examples show that the matter is
very complicated and that Californians benefit enormously both financially and
educationally from having a substantial number of out-of-state and
international fellow students. At
Berkeley, capping the number at 10% would do irreparable harm to Californians.
When I arrived at Berkeley in 2004, our primary source of revenue was
state general fund support. In just eight years that situation has changed
drastically. State support has fallen to fourth place as a source of revenue
for UC Berkeley, behind research funding, philanthropy, and tuition. Several
years ago, we recognized that the current financial model would be
unsustainable and since then have identified, developed and implemented a
carefully crafted plan to place Berkeley on a firm financial footing well into
the future. Although increasing non-resident enrollment is one important
element of that plan, our first act was to reduce significantly our
administrative costs. Operational Excellence, a program we launched to make the
University’s operations more efficient, has already achieved more than $30
million in annual, ongoing operational savings thus far.
Through our efforts in improvements in areas such as procurement,
organizational simplification, energy efficiency and infrastructure
improvements, we are on track to achieve savings of at least $75 million per
year when our Operational Excellence program is fully implemented. Additionally, UC Berkeley has focused
intently on maximizing non-state funds. We have succeeded in increasing
significantly federal research dollars and philanthropic support despite the
challenges of a flagging economy. Unfortunately, we also have had to respond to
the decline in state support through layoffs, furloughs, frozen salaries and
system-wide tuition increases. Capping undergraduate enrollment at 10% for
international and out-of-state students would require more such actions,
seriously harming our educational mission.
I know that we share common goals for the education of our California
students. I hope that, in light of the above, you will withdraw your proposed
constitutional amendment SCA 22.
With warm regards.
Yours sincerely,
Robert J. Birgeneau
Source:
No comments:
Post a Comment