Figure 1 is a circle showing the university’s fiscal year 2014-15 revenues displayed in millions of dollars and percentages, with the center of the circle showing the revenues total of $27.338 billion. The revenue categories include: Pell Grants, Other, Department of Energy Laboratories, Auxiliary Enterprises, Educational Activities, State General Fund, Tuition and Fees, Grants and Contracts, and Medical Centers.
The figure illustrates that the university’s total fiscal year 2014-15 revenues of $27.338 billion consisted of about 1% or $376 million from Pell Grants, 3% or $891 million from Other, 5% or $1.235 billion from Department of Energy Laboratories, 5% or $1.394 billion from Auxiliary Enterprises, 10% or $2.740 billion from Educational Activities, 14% or $3.784 billion from Tuition and Fees, 19% or $5.153 billion from Grants and Contracts, and 33% or $8.973 billion from Medical Centers. Only 10%, or $2.792 billion, of the university’s revenues come from State General Funds.
This figure excludes non-operating revenues such as gifts, investment income, and capitol financing, which totaled $1.4 billion.
Figure 2 is a circle displaying in millions of dollars and percentages, the university’s estimate of how it spent state general fund revenue of $2.792 billion during fiscal year 2014-15. The expenditure categories include: Teaching Hospitals, Public Service, Student Financial Aid, Research, Operating and Maintenance of Plant, Academic Support (including libraries), Institutional Support, and Instruction.
The figure illustrates that the university expended 1% or $14 million on Teaching Hospitals, 1% or $36 million on Public Service, 2% or $52 million on Student Financial Aid, 9% or $250 million on Research, 10% or $276 Million on Operations and Maintenance of Plant, 11% or $316 million on Academic Support which includes libraries, 16% or $443 million on Institutional Support. Fifty percent, or $1.405 billion, went toward Instruction in the classroom.
Figure 3 is a line chart that shows the changes in the university’s state general fund appropriations from fiscal years 2005-06 through 2014-15 and the university’s net tuition and fee revenue during the same period. The university’s revenue from tuition and fees has increased each year over the ten years. Specifically, the university’s net tuition and fees increased from $1.663 billion in fiscal year 2005-06 to $3.784 billion in fiscal year 2014-15. Furthermore, this figure also shows that net tuition and fee revenues exceeded the university’s State General Fund support for the first time in its history in fiscal year 2010-11, a trend that has continued since that time.
The chart also shows that the university’s State General Fund appropriations have fluctuated during the past 10 years. Specifically, the State increased general fund appropriations to the university in the period from fiscal years 2005-06 through 2007-08 from $2.573 billion to $2.975 billion before declining in fiscal year 2008-09. Then the State increased appropriations in fiscal year 2009-10, then decreased appropriations in the following two years, reaching its lowest amount of the ten year period, $1.964 billion, in fiscal year 2011-12. The State then increased General Fund appropriations to the university for the remaining three years and by fiscal year 2014-15 State General Fund appropriations had increased to $2.792 billion.
Figure 4 is a line chart that shows the number of freshman resident applicants, the combined number of freshman resident applicants either admitted to a campus of their choice or offered admission through the referral process, the number of freshman resident applicants specifically admitted to a campus of their choice, the number of freshman resident applicants who enrolled, and their percent changes between academic years 2005-06 through 2014-15. The chart includes a line showing that the university approved its “compare favorably” nonresident admissions policy in academic year 2010-11.
Freshman resident applicants increased by 52 percent from 65,300 in academic year 2005-06 to 99,600 in academic year 2014-15. Combined freshman resident applicants either admitted to a campus of their choice or offered admission through the referral process increased by 28 percent, from 56,600 in academic year 2005-06 to 72,400 in academic year 2014-15. Freshman resident applicants who were specifically admitted to a campus of their choice increased by 22 percent from 50,600 in academic year 2005-06 to 61,700 in academic year 2014-15. Further, freshman resident applicants who enrolled remained relatively static, increasing by 10 percent from 31,000 in academic year 2005-06 to 34,000 in academic year 2014-15. Finally, 77 percent of residents were admitted to the campus of their choice in academic year 2005-06, but declined to 72 percent in academic year 2010-11 and to 62 percent in academic year 2014-15. The figure counts an applicant only once, regardless of the number of campuses to which the applicant applied.
Figure 5 is a line chart that shows the number of freshman nonresident applicants, the number of freshman nonresidents admitted, the number of freshman nonresidents who enrolled and their percent changes between academic years 2005-06 through 2014-15. The chart includes a line showing that the university approved its “compare favorably” nonresident admissions policy in academic year 2010-11. The number of nonresident freshman applicants increased by 355% from 10,500 in academic year 2005-06 to 47,600 in academic year 2014-15. Both the number of nonresident freshman admitted and enrolled increased at rates significantly greater than the increase in the number of freshman nonresident applicants. The number of freshman nonresidents admitted increased by 430% from 5,000 in academic year 2005-06 to 26,700 in academic year 2014-15, and the number of freshman nonresidents enrolled increased by 432% from 1,500 in academic year 2005-06 to 7,700 in academic year 2014-15. The figure counts an applicant only once, regardless of the number of campuses to which the applicant applied.
Figure 6 is a bar chart, with bars representing the number of admitted nonresidents between academic years 2006-07 through 2014-15. Each year’s bar is split into two sections. The top part of the bar shows the admitted nonresidents at or above the median for residents of at least one academic score. The bottom part of the bar shows the admitted nonresidents who had lower test scores across every academic indicator we evaluated, including unweighted and weighted grade point averages, and all SAT and ACT test scores than the median scores of admitted residents. The first four bars of the chart, representing academic years 2006-07 through 2009-10 show that nearly all admitted nonresidents had higher GPAs and test scores than the median GPAs and test scores of admitted residents. However, the number of admitted nonresidents that fell below the median increased beginning in academic year 2010-11. By academic year 2012-13 the number of nonresidents who were below the resident median had increased substantially to 4,900 out of 21,400 nonresidents. By academic year 2014-15 nonresidents who were below the resident median accounted for 5,500 of the 26,700 nonresident freshman. Collectively, the chart notes that the university admitted 15,949 nonresidents with lower GPAs and test scores than admitted residents from academic years 2012-13 through 2014-15, while during this same period the university admitted 55,714 nonresidents with higher GPAs and test scores than admitted residents.
The figure includes a note that we counted an applicant only once, regardless of the number of campuses to which the applicant applied. We also included 98 nonresidents for whom the university did not provide any GPAs test or scores as at or above the median.
: Figure 7 is a stacked bar chart showing that the university significantly increased the amount of revenue it generated from nonresident supplemental tuition from $228 million in fiscal year 2005-06 to $728 million in fiscal year 2014-15, an increase of $500 million or 220 percent. Each bar shows stacked colored segments representing each of the ten campuses, illustrating the overall growth in nonresident supplemental tuition, as well as the growth at each campus. These stacked colors show that Berkeley, Los Angeles, and San Diego campuses receive the most nonresident tuition revenue and have the most growth in this revenue over the past 10 fiscal years. Nonresident tuition revenue has grown for the remaining 7 campuses to a lesser extent. The most recent three fiscal years are shaded on this chart, showing that the State General Fund appropriations for the university increased in each of those three years.
The figure also shows that the university enacted procedural policy changes in fiscal year 2007-08to allow campuses to retain the nonresident tuition revenue they generate and to set separate enrollment targets for residents and nonresidents. After these policy changes, nonresident tuition revenue began an increase that continued into fiscal year 2014-15. The second key procedural change occurred in 2011 when the university approved its “compare favorably” nonresident admissions policy. Lastly, the figure also identifies the years in which the State of California reduced its state appropriations in fiscal years 2008-09, 2010-11, and 2011-12 by $559 million, $137 million, and $687 million, respectively.
Figure 8 is a stacked bar chart showing the number and ethnicity of undergraduate residents not admitted by the university for four of the last ten academic years: 2005-06, 2008-09, 2012-13, and 2014-15. The chart depicts that the university increasingly denied admission to residents of all ethnicities, which include American Indian, African American, Chicano/Latino, White, Other/Unknown, and Asian. The university considers a student who identifies as African American, Chicano/Latino, or American Indian to be an underrepresented minority. This figure also shows that undergraduate resident applications are increasing over time, from 65,336 in academic year 2005-06 to 99,579 in academic year 2014-15.
Figure 8 includes a note that some students to whom the university denied admission to the campuses of their choice ultimately enrolled at an alternate referral campus, as shown in Table 7.
: Figure 9 a line chart showing that the university significantly increased undergraduate mandatory fees during the past 10 years, and that it increased nonresident mandatory fees, but at a lower cumulative percentage. Resident mandatory fees include base tuition and the student services fee. Nonresident mandatory fees include base tuition, student services fee, and nonresident supplemental tuition.
Since academic year 2005-06 the university has increased mandatory fees—base tuition and the student services fee—for residents six times and at varying rates resulting in an overall increase of 99 percent, from $6,141 in academic year 2005-06 to $12,240 in academic year 2015-16. Since academic year 2005-06, the university also increased mandatory fees for nonresidents six times at varying rates resulting in an overall increase of 54 percent, from $23,961 in academic year 2005-06 to $36,948 in academic year 2015-16. From academic year 2010-11 to 2015-16, mandatory fees for both residents and nonresidents have remained relatively flat.
Figure 10 is a flowchart showing that although the State’s total General Fund appropriation to the university for fiscal year 2014-15 was $2.991 billion, the university applies $2.105 billion of that money to its calculation of per-student funding. The university includes $2.383 billion for the prior year campus base budget, and $157 million in new campus allocations, totaling $2.540 billion, in its calculation. However, it then sets aside $435 million of that amount for other campus programs. Thus, although the total General Fund appropriation equals $10,866 per student using the university’s budgeted systemwide weighted student enrollment amount of 275,252; after deducting the set-asides, the university’s calculation comes to $7,648 per student.
The figure provides details of the university’s $157 million in new campus allocations. These include $7 million for the Merced campus, $5 million for the San Francisco campus, and a $37 million rebenching distribution to the other campuses. It also includes $10 million in cost adjustments for general campus and health science set-asides, and $16 million in adjustments and one-time funding. The remainder of the new campus allocations, $82 million, is the amount of funding the university allocated, based on their weighted enrollment, to the eight campuses it included in rebenching.
Then the figure goes into detail about the $435 million set-aside amount, showing that it includes $150 million in fixed cost set-asides at $15 million for each of the ten campuses. It lists another $177 million in general campus and health sciences set-asides for which the university does not know how much state funds campuses pay, the $10 million in cost adjustments for campus set-asides mentioned above, $15 million for the Riverside School of Medicine, and $83 million in additional set-asides. A note explains that the additional set-asides do not receive cost adjustments every year. These include $52.2 million for financial aid, $7.3 million for research projects such as the San Diego Supercomputer Center, $8.3 million for public service projects such as the Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science, and $15 million for the Merced campus.
The figure also depicts the difference between the total state general fund appropriation of $2.991 billion and the amount the university includes in its per-student funding calculation of $2.105 billion. In addition to the $435 million in set-asides, the remainder of the $886 million in state funds the university does not apply to its per-student funding calculations is $24 million for programs administered by the Office of the President, and $427 million in funding for debt service and similar items. The figure provides detail about the $427 million, showing that it includes $221 million for lease revenue bond debt service payments, $194 million in general obligation debt service, $6 million in surplus general obligation bond debt service, and $6 million in funding for amortization payments toward a deferred state contribution to the university’s retirement plan.
Figure 11 is a bar and line chart that includes the eight campuses the university included in rebenching in order from smallest to largest amount of combined per-student funding in fiscal year 2014-15: Riverside, Davis, Santa Cruz, Santa Barbara, Irvine, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Berkeley. Combined per-student funding is defined as the amount of state funding allocated to each campus plus the amount of nonresident supplemental tuition revenue, divided by the current weighted enrollment at each campus. The bars are split into two sections, the lower section is the fiscal year 2014-15 per-student state funding, including both residents and nonresidents, at each campus. Above this is the amount of nonresident tuition revenue per-student at each campus.
The line chart depicts the percentage of underrepresented minority students enrolled at each campus in fall of 2014. In general, this line shows that the highest-funded campuses when including nonresident tuition revenue, are generally the campuses with the lowest percentage of underrepresented minority students. For example, the highest-funded campus at $11,948 per student—Berkeley—is also the campus with the lowest percentage of underrepresented minorities, with 15.8 percent. In contrast, the Riverside campus had the lowest combined per-student funding of the other seven campuses at $7,937 in fiscal year 2014-15 but had the highest percentage of underrepresented minorities at 38.4 percent. A note below the Figure states the university considers a student who identifies as African American, Chicano/Latino, or American Indian to be an underrepresented minority.
Figure 11 includes a note that we excluded the Merced and San Francisco campuses because the university did not include them in rebenching. The Merced campus has the highest percentage of underrepresented minority students at 50 percent, and the San Francisco campus has the lowest percentage at 15 percent. The per-student state funding for these campuses was $11,777 and $8,217 respectively, and the per-student nonresident tuition revenue was $1,121 and $144, respectively.