Sebastabear;842833432 said:
Here is the issue. The State of California can't have it both ways. It can't both reduce funding for Cal from 90% to 10% over a few decades [U]and[/U] at the same time tie Cal's hands on doing what it can to raise money. No one is suggesting the the grossly unqualified applicants be given a slot at Cal. But if someone is on the margin this is a factor that should be considered. Every private school gives some form of preference to alumni families that can (and do) provide the school with significant donations. Every single one. If the State wants Cal, as a "public" school to be completely blind in admissions and to only admit the most qualified that's great (although, I would note there is a fair amount of subjectivity in all admissions decisions). There should be schools like that if we are truly a meritocracy. But then the State (and the taxpayers) have to pay up. They aren't.
This is the big "meta" debate right now. With state support being what it is should UC essentially "privatize" (the closest model is University of Michigan), throwing off the restrictions imposed by Sacramento even if it means no general fund funding. You summarize well some of the fault lines.
But another one is internal to the system. In such a world UCB, UCLA, and like UCSD thrive. But Merced, Riverside, Irvine, UCSC and possibly Davis and UCSB do not. Indeed, they struggle to maintain their status as research universities. Thus the serious quandry for which there is NO good answer (and which the Regents, as political appointees, have seen it in their interest not to resolve because of the threat to the system).
For example, as others have pointed out Cal with autonomy could solve a number of these problems relatively quickly. But the regents, knowing that and what it might mean for the system as a whole, do not provide said autonomy. Thus a big fat mess.