Friday, March 29, 2024

AdvertiseDonateSubmit
NewsSportsArtsOpinionThe QuadPhotoVideoIllustrationsCartoonsGraphicsThe StackPRIMEEnterpriseInteractivesPodcastsBruinwalkClassifieds

Raising non-resident enrollment is a reasonable response to recent budget cuts

By Eitan Arom

April 26, 2012 12:29 a.m.

Last year, the University of California system faced the largest funding cut from the state, in percentage terms, since the Great Depression, according to Todd Greenspan, director of academic planning at the UC Office of the President. The year before that, tuition surpassed state contributions as the primary funding source for the UC.

In the midst of these disconcerting trends, a solution that has emerged ““ increased enrollment of out-of-state and international students ““ though not universally popular, seems economically viable.

According to numbers released last week, UCLA increased admissions of out-of-state and international students by 32 and 35 percent, respectively. By ramping up enrollment of non-resident students during lean budgetary years, UCLA can maintain the consistent level of quality education for which it is world-renowned.

Very few institutions, financial or otherwise, have the ability to shelter themselves from a recession. Firms such as Lehman Brothers, AIG, and even to some extent, Ford Motors are so deeply plugged into the financial system that a housing bubble was enough to bring these commercial giants to their knees.

UC campuses are unique in that they have admissions choices to act as a pressure valve against economic stress. The fact that UCLA is able to charge non-resident students differentially and vary the number of non-residents it accepts allows for a buffer from the manic-depressive disposition of a capitalist economy.

Nonetheless, it is difficult not to be perturbed by the slow but steady increase in the percentage of non-resident undergraduates over the past decade. The number in the 2000-2001 school year, 4.8 percent, climbed to a little more than double that in 2010-2011, according to the UCLA Office of Analysis and Information Management.

For California taxpayers, it is understandable that the increase in non-resident admissions represents a default on the UC’s debt to the people of the state. After all, UCLA is a public institution with a responsibility to provide a quality education for California students and an investment in California’s human capital that can come from no other source. But the Master Plan for Higher Education, published in 1960, required only that the UC system accommodate the top eighth of California high school students.

Moreover, as UCLA administrators have pointed out, in absolute terms, enrollment of California residents has remained steady.

“We are the only UC campus that actually increased our number of enrollments to accommodate out-of-state students,” said Youlanda Copeland-Morgan, associate vice chancellor of enrollment management. “On other campuses there is some displacement of California residents, but not at UCLA.”

Indeed, though enrollment of California students at UCLA has fluctuated steadily between 22,000 to 24,000 for the last decade, absolute numbers do very little to capture indicators such as class size and student-to-teacher ratios, both of which have been on the rise.

It is imperative to understand, however, that if UCLA can’t come up with the money to pay the electric bill, the campus will go dark for Californians as well as non-residents. Non-resident enrollment is simply one powerful tool in a portfolio of funding options that administrators must necessarily explore.

Our neighbors at Santa Monica College serve as a frightening analog for what might happen if strategies such as non-resident enrollment remain untapped. In the last year alone, per-unit fees at Santa Monica College have ballooned by nearly 80 percent, even as future winter sessions are under threat of budgetary cancellation.

The situation has become so dire that a two-tier pricing system that differentially charges for more impacted classes was considered as a real possibility. Compared to a strategy like this one, toying with non-resident admissions doesn’t seem too dramatic.

UCLA has shown a fortuitous ability to shelter itself against budget cuts. While the state has a responsibility to invest in its human capital and education by funding the UC, campuses themselves have an equally pressing responsibility to look for alternative sources of funding while support from Sacramento wanes.

The point is not only that enrolling more non-residents in response to cutbacks is a reasonable tactic; rather, it is increasingly apparent that to not do so would be nothing short of financially irresponsible.

Email Arom at

[email protected]. Send general comments to

[email protected] or tweet us @DBOpinion.

Share this story:FacebookTwitterRedditEmail
Eitan Arom
COMMENTS
Featured Classifieds
More classifieds »
Related Posts