By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor
The ruling by the courts that could force UC Berkeley to cut back on enrollment for 3000 students in the upcoming year forced an interesting discussion across the state about not just housing—as many have also questioned the need for expanded enrollment.
But the news this week illustrates that the demand and need for space at the top public universities in the country is still growing—at least in the immediate future.
This week, UC Davis announced that a record 110,000 students applied for undergraduate studies at the university.
Robert Penman, executive director of Undergraduate Admissions, said this year’s applicant pool is further proof that UC Davis is a campus in demand. “UC Davis is an exceptional place to live, learn and grow,” he added. “This is an incredible group of applicants, and we’re very excited to welcome our next class in the coming weeks.”
While some have questioned the need for the expansion and implied it was watering down
higher education, these data say otherwise.
California’s population has doubled since 1970 but the UC system has only added the Merced campus. Moreover, study after study shows the impact of a college education on average salary.
According to a 2020 Northeastern University analysis, “education pays.” And in fact, it’s a pretty direct correlation. The more education one has, the higher their average salary is and the lower their unemployment rate is. Those with just a high school degree made on average less than $40,000 a year, rising to $65,000 for a bachelor’s and $78,000 for a master’s—and nearly six figures for a doctoral and professional degree.
The governor’s office is expanding educational opportunities.
“Expanding college access is the keystone of the higher education vision, with the state supporting expanded enrollment of nearly 5,000 full-time equivalent students within the UC System and nearly 10,000 full-time equivalent students within the California State University System in the 2019-20 budget,” the governor’s office said.
They are pushing a significant part of the growth to the top tier—UCLA, Berkeley and San Diego.
But part of that is putting the vision of education at odds with housing and land use and neighbors—and that is leading to conflict.
But what the application data show us is that there is actually the demand for space. The governor and UC and CSU are not pushing for expanded enrollment in a shrinking pot. This is not a matter of watering down enrollment.
It is not just the UC Davis campus breaking records.
UC announced Thursday that “its campuses received a record-breaking number of applications for fall 2022, underscoring UC’s position as one of the most sought-after higher education systems in the world.”
It recorded 16.8 percent growth from the fall of 2020.
“The University of California remains an institution of choice for so many hardworking prospective undergraduates,” said President Michael V. Drake, M.D. “This diverse group of students has shown their commitment to pursuing higher education and we are thrilled they want to join us at UC.”
The most impressive part is not only the volume of applicants but also the diversity of that applicant pool. A college education is the key to lifting people out of poverty and empowering them. And so many young people of color are now able to take advantage of a world-class education.
Systemwide, the proportion of California freshman applicants and California Community College (CCC) transfer applicants from low-income families grew to 46 percent and 56 percent respectively for the 2022 application period.
“UC’s dedicated outreach efforts to California high schools contributed to a surge in applications from California freshmen in underrepresented racial and ethnic groups, and in applications from low-income students for fall 2022,” a release said. “Chicano/Latino students comprised the largest ethnic group of the pool of California freshman applicants (38.1 percent) for the third year in a row, a 4.1 percent increase over the past year.”
It is true that, long-term, we might see the capacity for higher education drop, but in the present, we have a need for increased enrollment as a college education is best ticket out of poverty and into middle-class status.
There are legitimate concerns about housing that will need to be addressed. The student housing crisis is well documented.
The cost of education is a problem as well.
A CalMatters article in January noted, “Student housing in California is already tight and the state has big plans to expand enrollment at the University of California and the Cal States. A $5 billion proposal would give campuses loans at no interest to expand their housing stock.”
Assembly Bill 1602 by Assemblymember Kevin McCarty would help address this critical need. That would allow the universities to house around 21,000 more students.
But the article warns that “even that may not meet the total need given how many students struggle with housing insecurity and homelessness.”
“We have a college affordability crisis and we have a housing supply crisis,” said McCarty. “These two things are really acute right now in California.”
Others have noted universities need more infrastructure and housing and compensation for faculty in order to expand educational opportunities. And of course all of this will cost more money.
But as we know from the UC Berkeley situation, cutting off enrollment will cost the universities tens of millions each year. And depriving students of a college education makes little sense in a time when demand is rising and the state needs to find ways to educate as many students as wish to attend higher education.
.
It is not at odds with either housing or land use for UCD. All one has to do is look at West Village to see that.
With that said, the challenge UCD faces is maximizing the efficiency of its land use and it’s access to funding. Other UC campuses are building significantly taller housing on the same land use footprint. It is not clear at all why the new housing being built on the campus is not as dense as Davis Live for example. Seven stories at West Village would provide much more housing inventory than what has been built there thus far. Orchard Park on the south side of Russell should be at least as many stories as Davis Live is … if not more.
From an aesthetic perspective it would be much better looking from Russell if the buildings were rotated 45 degrees so the “edges” we see have “depth” rather than being the impersonal flat “wall” that the buildings so far present as a visual image.
There is no “at odds with” but rather an imperative for UCD to double-down and get cracking in its on-campus building of student housing.
Rethinking the Nishi project to have it house 5,000 to 7,000 rather than 2,200 would make much more sense as well. Governor Newsom should get involved in expediting the railroad underpass negotiations with Union Pacific too.
.
The numbers need some additional analysis. Analysis that is easy to do, for example the “density” of applications per applicant needs to be looked at. If the same applicant is now applying to more schools, then that is very different than if there are more applicants applying to the same number of schools. For example if the historical applicant applied to only two UC campuses (plus other non-UC campuses like Stanford or Harvard or one or more CSU campuses) then that is not a “true” increase because an applicant can not actually go to more than one university.
Some drill-down on the data is needed.
I also agree with Matt’s questioning the ‘data’… 50 years ago I applied to multiple colleges/campuses… my intention was UCD… but, in my UC application, I was prompted to identify other campuses as ‘acceptable’… so, since I listed 3, how was my ‘data’ recorded? All ‘applications’ for all campuses? And, like Matt posits, I applied elsewhere, as well… knowing that if I was accepted elsewhere, I still would have put UCD first among my decisions… I was accepted for at least four universities/campuses… I attended UCD… my first choice.
So, Matt is correct, the ‘data’ is incomplete, and has no ‘pivot point’ analysis.
Keith Y-E is also correct in his first paragraph (his 7:39 post)… have known a number of engineers, journalists, other fields, who had no college… but they had the motivation, drive to learn elsewhere, and were very successful… and Keith is also correct that we need to support skilled trades… you don’t need a degree in Mech Eng, to be a great and successful mechanic… or, electrician, carpenter, etc., and succeed professionally and financially…
Retraction… Keith Y-E’s SECOND paragraph… my bad…
And, Keith Y-E, it’s “cite”, not “site” (as to the ‘poor analysis’)… but I didn’t need a college degree to note that… Jr High was actually sufficient…
Your point, Keith Y-E, is still valid…
They’re handing out degrees like participation trophies.
Poor analysis will site the income gap between those with degrees and those without them. Not everybody wants to, needs to or should go to college. To fix the income gap, incentivize more manual labor, trade and especially manufacturing jobs to stay in the U.S. And better fund/improve public schools (like adding trade skills to high schools).
As for Universities needing more students for revenue? It’s much like cities that keep approving more and more residential communities for the development fees…..they’re an immediate cash infusion but a net loss over time. This financial model is unsustainable.
Some of this may be pent up demand from Covid-19-related school attendance delays.
If the demand is rising, raise the cost of tuition – that will decrease demand.
Or if the U wants more students, decrease the tuition and flood the colleges.
To allow more Californian’s access, the state should deny applications from out-of-state and out-of-country — all super rich applicants! End this.
There is no shame in living in Merced. Improve the campus there. Also time has come for UC Red Bluff, UC Susanville, UC Bishop, and UC Needles.
Even $5 billion isn’t going to fix the problems in getting housing built affordably with public union restrictions and private union promises in place.
Yes, in scoping meetings two decades ago brilliant input on West Village was a diagonal expanding out west to horizon and staggered buildings — same plot. Idea rejected and it looks like a prison.
I’d say more but why bother?
“If the demand is rising, raise the cost of tuition – that will decrease demand.”
They have done that to no avail as many have taken on additional debt. Compare what you paid adjusted for inflation to what students pay today. The professional schools are particularly more expensive.
Alan M
That’s not how the UC system works. Under your theory Stanislaus State should be a direct substitute to UC Berkeley, but as I pointed out in an earlier response the UCs require more than just a campus plopped down in a farm field–it requires being part of a larger community with which it interacts to stimulate intellectual investigations. There’s a reason why Oklahoma or South Dakota State are where new professors start their careers and why UCB, UCLA, Stanford and Harvard are where they retire, and students and employers know that too. UC Merced will not achieve the level of the other UCs until Merced changes. UC Riverside has struggled with this for decades. Making UCR one of the three ag-oriented UCs has been its saving grace.
College enrollment overall is dropping statewide and across the nation, and has been for years.
Fewer Students Mean Big Trouble For Higher Education : NPR
With college enrollment falling, universities start to freeze tuition (hechingerreport.org)
College enrollment decline of more than 15% predicted after the year 2025 (hechingerreport.org)
The UC system is pursuing a larger share of a smaller pie.
This is also occurring in K-12 school systems across the state, which will further impact demand for college (from in-state students, at least). K-12 student enrollment is expected to decline by an additional 7% over the next 10 years.
https://www.ppic.org/interactive/changes-in-k-12-enrollment-across-californias-counties/
Irrelevant to UC. Irrelevant to UC Davis. Not a factor in UC, UCD, or city of Davis planning decisions. This is relevant:
UC could add 20,000 seats for students by 2030 to meet surging enrollment demand.
https://artsdesign.berkeley.edu/plus/news/uc-could-add-20000-seats-for-students-by-2030-to-meet-surging-enrollment-demand
Again, Don – they are seeking a larger share of a smaller pie.
https://dailybruin.com/2021/01/12/uc-system-sees-increased-fall-enrollment-while-other-institutions-face-decreases
Now, if you think that’s a good thing to support, that’s a different issue. One might view it as “poaching” of students from other systems. (The same thing that K-12 systems pursue.) Evidence suggests that they do so out of self-interest.
Again, Ron, irrelevant to UC, irrelevant to UCD, irrelevant to city of Davis planning.
The system-wide UC statistics you cite are irrelevant to any particular UC, especially one like UCD.
Some may view UCD’s growth plans as irrelevant to the city of Davis’ planning needs.
(Other than to ensure that someone like Scott Wiener doesn’t take steps to negate its impacts to adjacent cities. Given Dan Carson’s previous interest in that subject, perhaps he’ll let his thoughts be known to the state.)
In any case, hasn’t UCD now agreed to house all additional students on campus – going forward? Or more accurately, to make housing available on campus to account for any additional increases?
Of course they are relevant. UC will apportion student demand based on increased enrollment demand. Obviously that affects UCD.
That makes literally no sense whatsoever.
As the campus grows in enrollment, it grows in staff and faculty as well. Chancellor Katehi’s 2020 Initiative, which was met if not exceeded with respect to student enrollment, expected several thousand faculty and staff along with the increased campus enrollment. UCD has or had plans to house some of those folks, but that part of their expansion has been repeatedly delayed. It’s unlikely they will ever house a significant percentage of their staff and faculty.
UC is going to grow in enrollment, and so is UCD most likely. If there is a desire to change that, the issue would be addressed at the level of the UC Office of the President and the Regents. UC is a business and is competing vigorously for market share. Very little of their budget now comes from the state (about 11% if I recall). They have a high level of autonomy.
Apparently, that also applies to the state’s HCD, in regard to Davis’s “fair share” (RHNA) housing requirements.
Given that they’ve been refusing to count the student megadorms toward those requirements.
Apparently, HCD does not view that type of student housing as a city responsibility.
Don,
I see it as irrelevant to the city of Davis’ planning needs….at least in terms of obligation. In terms of good fiscal planning they should focus an area for a student quarter to capture student spending revenue for the city (ie. commercial focused for students with…if necessary…mixed in with student housing).
Perhaps to someone who believes it’s a city’s responsibility to accommodate whatever a UC decides to do. (Perhaps someone who believes that can explain this to HCD, in regard to RHNA fair share housing requirements.)
But I take it from your response that they UCD has agreed to provide sufficient on-campus housing if they continue pursuing additional students.
Again, delays on campus are not a city responsibility. By the way, isn’t Katehi long-gone?
But I’m quite certain that the new developments in Woodland are where most of these folks will end up – especially if that delay continues. In fact, I suspect that many would choose to do so, and that many already have.
Exactly. (Actually, school districts also have a great deal of autonomy.)
Of course, it will be interesting to see what happens with the Berkeley lawsuit.
It will also be interesting to see if Wiener succeeds in exempting university developments from CEQA requirements.
Post copied by Ron O, to which he responds,
So, is he asserting that school districts also get ~ 11 – 20 percent of their revenues from the State?
I wonder, am curious, as to the intent. As to,
I hope they are not exempted, as CEQA is meant as disclosure, not an imperative as to ‘mitigating impacts’… that’s for the ‘body political’ to decide, case by case… CEQA recognizes ‘over-riding considerations’, which seems right and just, case by case…
Folk should learn to understand what CEQA is, and what it isn’t…
I am not asserting anything regarding the percentages. You are referring to a quote from Don, to which you are now putting forth your own speculation regarding what school districts receive.
I was responding to the text that was bolded in the same paragraph.
I was surprised to see that Don believes that the UC system only gets 11% of it’s funding from the state. (I have not looked into that.)
Fair enough… but note that tuition, fees, etc. are part of UC’s revenues… does not apply to K-12…
Click to Edit – 4 minutes and 18 seconds
ReplyReport comment ↓
Yeah, I think we all know that they don’t charge tuition at public K-12 schools.
Now that I think about it, maybe not a bad idea though. 🙂
You’d certainly see a lot more of them “right size” themselves, if that was the case. Actually, you’d see some of them go out of business, entirely.
“Again, Don – they are seeking a larger share of a smaller pie.”
So what? Your argument is a failed attempt at inductive reasoning. If enrollment overall is declining than UC enrollment should be declining. Apparently your argument is in opposition to the empirical data on demand for a UC diploma.
You see UC will continue to grow and the lamentations of the locals will be seen by UC as one more thing to be managed as bright young people from all over the state, country and world continue to recognize the value of a degree from UC.
You’re discounting the role and motivation of UC itself, to take a bigger share of the pie.
OMG, UC has an interest in growing UC. Revelatory insights on the nature of institutions and Schrodinger’s Cat. Meanwhile the proof is in the application pudding.
I suppose that someone has to save the world, ensure that diversity is achieved, and put a genetically-modified chicken in every pot.
And that’s the reason that everyone should support everything that UC proposes, even as other university/college systems decline (partly as a result of UC’s goals).
Extra points if they’re educating those whose governments are not entirely-friendly toward the U.S. (or even their own citizens).
Since the UC system has been considered a top-level school, the pursuit of increased market share would likely come from students who wouldn’t have qualified for admission, in the past.
As a result, the overall quality of a UC education will likely be dragged-downward.
I believe we’re already a sign of this regarding the elimination of the SAT.
Well, I guess UC won’t need any more “capacity” from folks transferring from this institution, at least:
Oh, but wait. Aren’t they concerned about the impact on “diversity”? Of course they are (regarding both staff AND students):
But the college itself is (also) defending the cuts, in the name of “diversity”:
https://48hills.org/2022/02/city-college-board-votes-to-lay-off-at-least-50-full-time-faculty/
Man, when “both sides” start using the diversity argument (in the face of declining enrollment), who are we to believe?
This should have been done a long, long time ago. But it really wasn’t that difficult to transfer to a CSU (at least), even decades ago. You just had to pay attention to what you were doing.
Then again, with community college enrollment dropping (along with dropping enrollment in the “feeder” system of K-12 schools), it’s eventually going to impact all universities.
https://edsource.org/2021/newsom-signs-bills-to-ease-college-transfer-and-improve-student-housing/662048
Here’s some more information. I’m not sure if the new law requires all 9 UC campuses to accept community college units. (But, I believe that UCD is one of the “6”, at least.)
https://admission.universityofcalifornia.edu/admission-requirements/transfer-requirements/
But again, community college enrollment (in particular) is declining, due to changing demographics.
Just don’t tell that to the UC “company towns”. They get upset.
As do those associated with K-12 school districts.
(Well, Santa Cruz and Santa Barbara may not care all that much.)
Actually, in reading that again – it appears that they all are required to accept the units, but that a placement in your major is only guaranteed at six of the nine.
Then again, did these students have a guarantee in their major if they applied directly to a particular UC, and skipped the community college? (I don’t think so.)
If you read the article (and other articles), you’ll see that there’s resistance in both systems to this. The reason being that it creates more work for the institutions – not that they care about the needs of their students. However, they have no choice but to comply.
Again, they should have been forced to do this decades ago.
Here we have a bunch of aging men who ignore the privileges they gained from their college education and now want students to pay more, go find a different line of work or live in segregated housing that disenfranchises them from local decision making. I was able to get through UC Berkeley 40 years ago earning $4,000 a year paying my own tuition plus a small student loan and a grant of $3,000 across 2 years. No student could imagine getting through a UC today on less than $10,000 and $4,000 a year of aid.
The UC system is highlighted each year as the most impactful educational institution in the nation on promoting diversity and opportunity for disadvantaged students. Telling them to go elsewhere run counter to the mission given UC by the state.
And Davis has a duty and obligation to assist in this mission. Not everything in our society is about individual rights. We also have responsibilities to others, often in return for the privileges we are given such as the cultural and economic advantages of living in a college town. (Of which I’ve written about often here.) Selfishness is not a rationale for shirking those duties.
It’s apparently much easier to criticize when you don’t even read the comments.
By the way, how old are you?
Aren’t all humans who claim male as their sex “aging”?
See how PC I was there…
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/02/uc-berkeley-university-enrollment-nimby/622927
NIMBYism Reaches Its Apotheosis
Phil Bokovoy thinks Berkeley the school is putting Berkeley the city at risk. And he sued to stop it.
(Bokovoy is the epitome of the privileged NIMBY.)
How much should people give/sacrifice so that kids have the privilege of going to college? And why should certain communities sacrifice more (quality of life) than others?
You’re a dogmatic fan of supply and demand. How about dramatically DECREASING enrollment? Suddenly demand for student housing will decrease and increase student housing inventory so in theory student housing costs will decrease. Demands for faculty and staff will decrease which eventually should lead to lesser faculty and staff cost…or at least stabilize it. Also, the value of the degrees for those that get them will be more valuable and not participation trophies.
Keith E: Did you go to a public college ?
I’m not answering a personal question on a public online forum. But get to your point. Since you replied to me; answer the question I asked of Richard.
Seriously? Anyway… The point is a good percentage of college educated people went to public college and most went to public school as well. I’m one of them. So you ask how much should people sacrifice so that kids can go to college – hey people sacrificed so that I could, why shouldn’t I pay it forward?
So what. A good percentage of kids go to public school. That’s what it’s there for. People also didn’t go to college too. So what. It happens. College isn’t for everyone. If they want to pump in more kids into college. BUILD MORE COLLEGES. If you want more houses to be built, more student housing more classrooms…build out the infrastructure to expand and build new ones.
And how much did those people sacrifice so you could go to college? How much should we sacrifice? And again, why should some (like those that live adjacent to a university or in a college town) have be obligated to sacrifice more? Or or you just kneeling at the alter of higher education and stuck in liberal dogma about the benefits of college for everyone?
The idiotic dogmatic view that everyone needs to go to college is complete garbage. The income gap should be fixed by fixing and protecting manual labor, manufacturing and trade jobs..etc…
I really don’t see your argument. Basically having a bachelor’s double’s the average earning potential. That’s not a dogmatic view, it’s empirically based.
David, please share how you’re paying it forward.
One of our students just got into Berkeley Law School last week.
He’s paying it forward by advocating that others make the sacrifice. Which is usually the joke that conservatives make about liberals.
Really? Are you that stuck in dogma that you’re blind to the simple equation? Instead of pumping in more college graduates and continuing to devalue degrees , INCREASE the earnings of the non-college workers by incentivizing and protecting manufacturing and trade jobs. Improve high schools (add trade skills), vocational schools, trade schools…. protect manufacturing jobs. Improve earnings for the blue collar middle class.
And you still haven’t answered: how much should we be paying and why? if you equate it to what you received, how much did those before you pay so others could go to public universities…so that we can get a base line for comparison (not necessarily a fixed ideal target but a frame of reference)
It has done so much for the State and the World that the UC’s keep cranking out lawyers, despite a glut of those with law degrees.
On the other hand you can get some decent legal advice from some of the baristas at Starbucks. I wonder if that has anything to do with the unionization efforts going there?
> David, please share how you’re paying it forward.
> David Greenwald – One of our students just got into Berkeley Law School last week.
Definition of “Pay it forward” — when the recipient of an act of kindness does something kind for someone else rather than simply accepting or repaying the original good deed.
So let me get this straight — you have students who work for you for free, and when one of them gets into grad school on their own accord, you consider that an act of kindness on your part? You seriously lost me on that logic.