A recent 116-page state audit revealed that the University of California system has, for the past three years, admitted out-of-state students less qualified than in-state students in order to generate revenue. The difference in tuition between the two groups is more than double — California residents pay $13,400 in basic tuition and fees, compared to $38,108 for residents of other states. The state college system’s acceptance of higher-paying out-of-state students at the expense of in-state students is condemnable given the system’s purpose to serve Californians. And even if the skewed admissions demographics were necessary to address budgetary woes, the system’s administration should have made this motive clearer to state residents.
As a state institution, the University of California has a responsibility to educate its state populace. A public college education system allows states to retain talent within their borders. Taxpayers who support the infrastructure to educate young Californians from elementary to high school should be especially upset that the students they invest in may be seeking higher education opportunities outside of California. Residents of California who study outside of the state may be less likely to return to California and contribute to the state economy.
In response to the controversy following the audit’s release, University of California President and U.Va. Law graduate Janet Napolitano criticized the audit’s conclusions for failing to recognize that acceptance of more out-of-state students was ultimately beneficial for Californians. She contended that the higher-paying out-of-state students contributed $728 million to the state university system, allowing the 10 constituent campuses to accept more California residents than they would be able to without raising money by accepting more non-Californians. According to Napolitano, California residents would have had to spend approximately 20 percent more on tuition if the University of California did not accept more higher-paying out-of-state students.
However, critics such as state auditor Elaine Howle have called into question the validity of Napolitano’s claims. If, as Napolitano says, the move to accept more out-of-state students was made with the intention of helping Californians, then the University of California administration should have been more transparent about its support for admitting some out-of-state students who are less-qualified than in-state applicants.
Here at the University, the Office of Admissions consistently enrolls a high number of in-state students — approximately two-thirds of matriculating students come from Virginia. A benefit of this admissions policy is that competitive college graduates from Virginia remain in the state, preventing a brain drain of bright students to cities in other states with other competitive colleges. State universities should first and foremost meet the needs of their state residents, and with last week’s release of the California audit, we saw one of our peer institutions fail to do so.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Celebrating and reflecting on The Cavalier Daily’s independence
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoOur independence grants us the ability to ask the hard questions and to say what University representatives cannot.
ARRAS: U.Va. must revise the Sexual Assault Prevention Training module
By Aoife Arras | April 17, 2024In addition to its failures in interactivity, the module lacks details specific to the University and discusses key concepts in universal terms.
EDITORIAL: Pedestrian safety is an institutional imperative
By Editorial Board | April 15, 2024Amid a national crisis of pedestrian safety, Charlottesville and the University are also struggling to properly maintain pedestrian safety.
