Save Our Jewel

The Growth of UCSD Campus in La Jolla
The 2004 LRDP projects accommodating by the year 2020-21 a regular academic year (i.e., the Fall, Winter, and Spring quarters) headcount enrollment of 29,900 was forecasted. This headcount enrollment includes 800 Health Science Resident Students that are schooled off-campus at the UCSD Medical Center in Hillcrest. The campus regular academic year full-time equivalent (FTE) for the year in the plan 2020-21 was projected at 29,100 FTE students this has exceeded 32,3700 in 2017. A summer FTE enrollment of about 3,600 is expected by the year 2020-21. Thus, UCSD plans a total FTE enrollment of 35,816 (including summer enrollment). As the increased enrollment would exceed the student enrollment projections described in the 1989 LRDP, this update (the 2004 LRDP) and preparation of a new Environmental Impact Report (EIR) should be undertaken in compliance with Section 21080.09 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). At 6% Growth Rate per year, 2017 will be 38,025, 2018 will be 40,306, 2019 will be 42,725 and 2020 would be 45,288.There is a group forming in La Jolla “Save Our Jewel” (SOJ) to challenge the UC system and UCSD. See below what caused the increase. This group will challenge the President and Regents of the UC System about UCSD. La Jolla can not count on City Council because they have no jurisdiction. To accommodate the growth, the LRP 2018 Plan has projects like the Living Neighborhood Project which will add 2,500 more cars to Torrey Pines Road and Dormitory with over 2,000 beds.
Please view an internal video from UCSD.
The California State Auditor, in a letter to the Governor, President Pro of the Senate and Speaker of the Assembly, writes, “The university’s efforts resulted in an 82 percent increase in nonresident enrollment from academic years 2010–11 through 2014–15, or 18,000 students, but coincided with a drop in resident enrollment by 1 percent, or 2,200 students, over that same time period.”
“The university’s decision to increase the enrollment of nonresidents has made it more difficult for California residents to gain admission to the university.”
The decision to admit more nonresident students might not be a problem except that local students see their enrollment drop. Moreover, by regulations, “the university should only admit nonresidents who possess academic qualifications that are equivalent to those of the upper half of residents who are eligible for admission. However, in 2011, the university relaxed this admission standard to state that nonresidents need only to ‘compare favorably’ to residents.”
The report finds, “During the three-year period after this change, the university admitted nearly 16,000 nonresidents whose scores fell below the median scores for admitted residents on the same campus on every academic test score and grade point average that we evaluated. At the same time, the university denied admission to an increasing proportion of qualified residents at the campus to which they applied—nearly 11,000 in the academic year 2014–15 alone—and instead referred them to an alternate campus.”
To increase tuition revenue in the face of state funding shortfalls, the audit finds that “the university implemented two key procedural changes that encouraged campuses to maximize nonresident enrollment. In 2008 the university began allowing the campuses to retain the nonresident supplemental tuition revenue (nonresident revenue), they generated rather than remitting these funds to the Office of the President, which resulted in campuses focusing resources on enrolling additional nonresidents.Also in 2008, the Office of the President began establishing separate enrollment targets— systemwide targets for the number of students each campus should strive to enroll each year—for nonresidents and residents, and it allowed each campus to establish its own separate enrollment targets.”
UC San Diego was among those who “increased their individual campus enrollment targets for nonresidents at a faster rate than their targets for residents. These two procedural changes satisfied the university’s goal: In a fiscal year a billion from the supplemental tuition that nonresidents paid.The auditor notes, “In reaction to state funding reductions, the university has doubled mandatory resident fees—base tuition and the student services fee—over the past 10 years, which has made it difficult for California families to afford and budget for this important investment.”
The Legislature required the university to enroll an additional 5,000 residents in the academic year 2016–17 as a condition of receiving $25 million in state funds. While the university estimates these 5,000 students will cost approximately $50 million to educate, or $10,000 per student, in addition to the tuition they pay, it has not conducted a study to support that estimate. The university plans to use its other funding sources to pay for the remaining $25 million, primarily by not offering financial aid to new nonresidents. These actions suggest that the university has the ability to use funds that it had dedicated for other purposes to enroll additional residents.”
In her response included in the audit’s findings, dated March 8, President Janet Napolitano said that “the draft report that has been shared with us makes inferences and draws conclusions that are supported neither by the data nor by sound analysis.”
She writes, “The audit’s subtitle, for example, presupposes a conclusion that University of California ‘admissions and financial decisions have disadvantaged California resident students.’ An alternative and more objective subtitle would be, ‘faced with unprecedented budget cuts, the University of California made every effort to sustain in-state enrollment while maintaining academic quality and holding tuition flat.’” She writes, “To suggest from the outset that UC decisions regarding admissions were designed to ‘disadvantage Californians,’ as opposed to mitigating the impact of a 33 percent budget cut, is a rush to judgment that is both unfair and unwarranted.”