<p>Local</a> News | Why straight-A's may not get you into UW this year | Seattle Times Newspaper</p>
<p>Glad my kids aren't applying this year.</p>
<p>was wondering how that might affect certain colleges, in particular the UC system. hearing of some students not getting the classes they want in a timely fashion–needing 5 years to graduate. Also larger class sizes looming. Small LACs starting to look more interesting. Not all big schools are sheltered by endowments like UMich and UTexas.</p>
<p>The House just passed their version of the NH budget and cuts UNH spending by 45%. The Community College system would take a 35% hit in the House budget. The budget now moves to the Senate.</p>
<p>[House</a> budget cuts target Berlin prison, higher education - NH.com](<a href=“http://www.nh.com/news/913156-151/prison-in-danger-of-closure.html]House”>http://www.nh.com/news/913156-151/prison-in-danger-of-closure.html)</p>
<p>I suspect that this means more OOS full-pays, less aid, higher tuition and fees or fewer overall slots.</p>
<p>that’s info I didn’t know, thx. Everyone has heard about the UC cutbacks. I suspect it’s a coming sign of the times. I imagine NJ, FL, Ill, NV, AZ and even NY will have a similar trend. If their public schools are not supported by rich endowments, the handwriting is on the wall.</p>
<p>How does a 56% acceptance rate compare to other flagships universities? I know it is higher than in the state where my DDs go.</p>
<p>i don’t understand why they rejected the student in Emeraldkity’s link. Was it because he needed financial aid or did they just assume he would go elsewhere.</p>
<p>This happened many years ago in NH. In the past, high-school grads in the top 20% could assume that they would get into UNH and it was a safety school. That changed with this decade.</p>
<p>Things like APs, test scores, and ECs weren’t included so maybe those hurt him. Also, he was going for their business school and perhaps they had a lot of applicants for that particular school. At any rate, changing state budgets are a game changer.</p>
<p>because it would free a space for a higher paying OOS student who did not require financial aid is the implication. To your point, however, some schools do a pretty good job of weeding out applicants simply looking for trophies (i.e., not visiting the schools or communicating w/admissions reps, not interviewing if it is available as an option etc.)</p>
<p>business schools are generally harder to get in to. they are indeed targeted but really limit your educational experience as an undergrad. My D originally wanted to go to a business program and was accepted at a couple excellent ones, but decided on majoring in Economics w/a French minor at UMich instead. She will be interning at a business school in Paris this summer. More than one way to skin a cat as they say, and still get a well-rounded undergrad experience. Still, if you are really committed to a business program and want it from the get-go, it’s worth applying. Just make sure you want it, and it’s not your parents’ sole choice/objective in helping you get a job after graduation.</p>
<p>I too know of kids with 3.7-3.8 GPAs and 2000+ SATs who did not get into UW this year. On the other hand, if you were out-of-state, you had a better shot than before, because they opened up more OOS slots because of the higher tuition charged. All sorts of kids who assumed that if they had good grades and test scores that they could get into UW or at worst, WWU, got into neither. Instead, they are headed over the mountains to WSU, CWU or EWU (in that order).</p>
<p>Meanwhile, tuition rises at more than 10% each year, pricing some families out of a public university education, even though the students have the grades and test scores for entry. They end up at my little community college, where enrollment is skyrocketing in the face of large budget cuts in each of the last 4 years. We are now teaching 20% more kids with 20% less funding. You don’t have to be in a Calculus class to do the math on that!</p>
<p>I am curious about how many of those disappointed kids have parents who voted for the tax cut initiatives in Washington State. I’m willing to bet that those parents are unable or unwilling to make the connection between cutting taxes and reducing higher education opportunities.</p>
<p>Let’s not go nuts here - the percentage of in-state students in admission went from 73%to 70%. The number of direct admits in the Foster School of Business is very, very small (most go in for their junior year), and high ranking students are turned down every year because they don’t have the preparation for direct business admits.</p>
<p>The bigger problem at AW is that fewer and fewer students can gt the courses they need to finish in four years.</p>
<p>State funding for colleges and universities are an entitlement and anyone receiving an entitlement knows that it can be cut at any time. The state doesn’t owe us anything more than K-12.</p>
<p>Higher education is an investment and states can decide to cut their investments if they can’t afford them.</p>
<p>It is all matter of supply and demand. Less graduate from public U’s will not affect the supply of students by that much. Private schools can make up the difference. Some less competitive schools will shut their doors. Is it fair to those who can’t afford? No. So it life. Just live with it.</p>
<p>Perhaps WA should change how tuition is set.
Fourteen states allow institutions to determine tuition.
Three states have local district governing boards.
Twenty three have coordinating governing board(s) for individuals systems
Thirteen have statewide coordinating/agency for multiple systems &
Four have power with the legislature.
( a few state use more than one system)</p>
<p>If I look at the experience of Washington over the past four years, given the latitude the schools have been given by the Legislature, I think it’s clear that the institutions can’t be trusted to set tuition unless they can be required to provide funding for low-income students.</p>
<p>State universities and such are entitlements and yes, they can have their funding slashed, and almost all state programs are doing that, given massive budget gaps that many states face, not surprising.</p>
<p>That said, the reason states built university systems was not altruistic, it wasn’t ‘welfare’, it was because they realized the advantages of doing so. New York City established their city university system back in the 19th century, understanding that having an afffordable education for those bright but necessarily well off would pay off, and it did, in spades, especially in the years prior to WWII when college educations were rare for the middle and working classes. City College, the flagship, still have the greatest number of nobel prize winners of any university in the world I believe, they used to call it ‘the rich man’s harvard’.</p>
<p>It also tends to pay off, the Austin area in Texas and the research triangle area in North Carolina were driven by having a flagship research university in the area, and those are just a small example. The Silicon valley 'Gold rush" so to speak wasn’t just driven by stanford, it was also driven by proximity to some damn good public universities with top notch research faculty, and the list goes on, it is also why you don’t see ‘silicon valleys’ around places that don’t make that investment. </p>
<p>States and localities have to make choices, but I hope that people realize there are consequences when you cut education, that especially in tough economic times when private school tuition may be out of reach, willy nilly cutting spending on public universities may be cutting their throat to spite their face, in that it could hold long term consequences. We keep hearing how government deficits and debts are going to hurt our children and grandchildren, which has elements of truth to it, but what about their future in terms of opportunity where education is a must?I think a lot of people assume you can make deep cuts and it will eliminate ‘waste’ but I think they are going to find out the consequences, like back in the 70’s when California slashed spending on its state schools and saw some real problems develop, there is no free lunch, and we are going to need to decide where our priorities lie.</p>
<p>UC San Diego has always been hospitable to our local kids, but this year has been brutal! ELC kid, 32 ACT, 700+ on SAT2s–outright rejected, not even a wait list. In the past, a kid like this, so long as you didn’t confess to being a mass murderer in your essay, would have had a spot.</p>
<p>I blame the CA budget uncertainty. UCs aren’t sure if they’ll lose 1 billion in funding, so they are being very conservative with acceptances and have said that they will be accepting more non-residents. </p>
<p>Kid in question has an alternate, less convenient UC choice and a financially doable private choice, so he’ll land on his feet. But it was eye opening to see the change–UCSD has become more selective over the years, but not to this level.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>That’s fine for Austin and Raleigh-Durham but what about the rest of
the state? In NH, the state flagship is in Durham while industry is
located to the south.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>How do you decide between police, prisons, mental-health, child
welfare, K-12, etc. Is it not more important to provide K12 monies
than it is to provide higher-education monies?</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Our country has the privilege of being the world’s reserve currency
which means that we can print at the Federal level and get away with
it. The rest of the world does not have that luxury. We have abused
that luxury and we’re slowly losing reserve currency status. It is
nice to think that money comes from outer space but it really comes
from the spending choices that we as a country make along with how
much we can sell to other countries.</p>
<p>We can’t help NH is a stupid state when it comes to higher ed. Many states have enjoyed huge positives from their investments in higher ed. Both through economic development in the college town but by having educated citizens for jobs throughout the state. And how can you attempt with a straight face to propose that just because most development is in one area it does not benefit the entire state? Is not the state the sum of its parts and if you add another growing economy you have helped increase the total income of the state? That was just a baseless ignorant statement. </p>
<p>Maybe you should read this</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.news.wisc.edu/news/docs/UW-Madison_Economic_Impact_Study.pdf[/url]”>http://www.news.wisc.edu/news/docs/UW-Madison_Economic_Impact_Study.pdf</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is just my personal opinion, but I think education is more important than those other [important] things. Short-changing the schools is like eating your seed corn. The bad consequences roll decades into the future. For everyone.</p>