<p>THere are studies about this too and they are all over the place. I found a meta analysis that says SR grade data should be used with caution, but it is fairly reliable at the higher GPAs. Also less reliable for high school GPA than college. All this makes makes common sense to me.</p>
<p>But when you are examining something over time, I suspect the inaccuracies, faulty reports, and misrepresentations pretty much persist over that time period. i don’t suspect that for some reason the kids in 1973 reported accurately, but the kids in 2008 did not. So for a snapshot it isn’t great data, but for a trend it is probably somewhat better.</p>
<p>All of this doubt, of course, is why I asked for data on grade inflation. I didn’t ask for data as an “appeal to authority” argument tactic - since I tend to believe there is inflation. i asked for it because I’d like to read it. When people speak about something with such assurance I figure some of them may have some data to share.</p>
<p>Antidotally, it is way easier to get a 5 on the ap and a 750 plus on the sat subject test then to get an A in the class at our small public high school in the metro nyc region. I don’t think ds got less than a 770 and all 5s and usually ended up with a b+ on the final grade and he was pretty typical. The As were reserved for the super brilliant or extra hard worker / perfectionist types…maybe two or three in the class.</p>
<p>One reason the study I linked is interesting to me is that the grades were not self-reported. They were reported by the high schools. Then the researcher compared the grades to AP scores. My understanding is that, while the sample is small, it was made up of the 5 high schools in one state which had the highest # of AP test takers. </p>
<p>I know that the college board sells this info to high schools. A long time ago, there was a poster who was a college adviser who posted the data each year, e.g. (making up #s), there were 2100 test takers who took the AP calc BC test. The median score was a 3.9 and 553 students got 5s. (Again, these are made up #s.) Things like BC calc had the highest average scores. Things like US history, which many students take, had the lowest. That makes intuitive sense. </p>
<p>What the commentary in the report suggests—though the data included didn’t really support what was said, the actual data might–is that not only do different high schoos grade differently, but some teachers appear to be using grading criteria which are not related to mastery of the material. In other words, high school teachers don’t grade the same as college profs.</p>
<p>Except that in 1973, a much smaller subset of high school seniors self-reported grades. Back in the dark ages, in most high schools, college was not seen as a goal; thus, a much smaller group took the SAT/ACT. Moreover, the demographics have changed significantly. Back in the late '60’s, California high schools were ~80% white, which reflected the test takers back then. Today, whites comprise less than half of the state’s population and thus, less than half of the test takers. Again, a large English vocabulary is critical to score well in SAT-CR, and if one’s native tongue is not American English…</p>
<p>Finally, the curriculum has changed since the '70’s. When I attended my backwater HS (middle class 'burb in the San Francisco Bay Area), the number of shop courses (almost) exceeded College Prep courses. (No such thing as honors or AP even offered.) Today, that same HS offers numerous AP’s. </p>
<p>IMO, reporting errors only compound the issue.</p>
<p>Residential real estate values in California are usually closely associated with perceived quality of area public high schools. Yes, there are major issues with CA education, but not EVERYWHERE.
People moving to this state are often in for a shock at the prices - yes, even now…no, not everywhere, but in our city we do have jokes about how much you have to pay for what some describe as a “shack” locally.
Our local high schools do not (generally) have grade inflation - lots of reports of students receiving 5’s on the harder AP exams yet earning “lower” grades in the actual course - which then affects college admissions…this has created a lot of stress here.
One can argue it’s fortunate to have challenging teachers…
This has led to a massive rise in the use of tutors for accelerated learning, to get the grades…it’s a sort of cycle leading to prioritizing grades and external validation, over education and learning…sad.
I agree the CA legislature has put us massively in debt and led to this situation of UC’s offering more slots to OOS. I would strongly prefer better fiscal management and more in-state offers.</p>
<p>Actually, the voters need to look at themselves for passing propositions that limit or reduce taxes and increase or put lower limits on spending on things like K-12 and prisons. The legislature deserves a lot of the bad press it gets, but it is greatly constrained by the budget limitations imposed on it by voters, so even a “good” legislature would have a hard time cleaning up the budget mess.</p>
<p>I think we have forgotten how America becomes the world power we are today. Without opening our arms to the Germans, we will not have reached the moon that early. Without Jerry Yang’s, and Sergy Brin’s of the world, we will not have Yahoo and Google. America is the land of the free. That is why we attract the best and the brightest come and contribute to the country. Granted that the slot for Jerry Yang and Sergy Brin were taken from some less qualified US-Born kids, from the contry’s perspective, the overall benefit out-weights the lost. Are we suggesting that we now should close our doors and forget how we get where we are at today?</p>
<p>Don’t blame the problem on CA’s taxation structure. The same phenomenon is occurring in other states. The article itself already mentions Michigan and Washington. Other articles elsewhere have mentioned Vermont, South Dakota (or some state around that area), etc.</p>
<p>The problem is that we’ve spent ourselves from rich to broke, while they’ve worked their way from poor to, well, not poor. We can play with quotas and restrictions and budgets and taxation and laws on the margin, but we can’t legislate gravity, and ultimately, the Golden Rule holds: He who has the gold makes the rules. They got the gold.</p>
UVA and UMi have been so successful because they have always allowed a fairly high percentage of OOS students. VA has a fairly high income and good education due to its inclusion in the Capital Beltway zone. MI is an interesting case, given its weak economy…
Housing prices in CA are high BECAUSE taxes are so low- you pay it one way or another! (It is kind of like a bond: interest rate down, price up- and vice versa). If you compare similar SES regions, you will see some of this relationship. So, that means that the home-owner in CA pays a lot to buy the house (with or without mortgage debt), and then pays less in prop taxes. And the CA gov gets less to work with.
The CA Prop system is quite problematic. Not only does the legislature have it hands tied, the initiatives are written in obfuscating language, and it is often hard to decide how to vote: the policy might be something one is in favor of, but the means and mechanisms included in the initiative may not be to one’s liking or even congruous with the goals of the initiative, in that voter’s opinion- so what to do??</p>
Doesn’t California have a two-tiered property tax system due to prop 13? I know the average rate is low, but not everyone pays this low rate. Isn’t that the case?</p>
<p>Of course I’m no expert on this. I just pay it.</p>
<p>Doesn’t Cal have a system where if someone owned the house for 20 years, the value stays as it was 20 years ago? Warren Buffett was suggesting changing it to Ahhnold but was told it won’t be accepted. Buffett’s claim was he owned some beachfront property worth 2 Million but was paying taxes at 200k or something like that, his purchase price 30 years ago.</p>
<p>“UVA and UMi have been so successful because they have always allowed a fairly high percentage of OOS students.”</p>
<p>The UC’s have been successful for decades DESPITE having a very low[ until very recently] % of OOS students. In fact they are still considered the best state University system. Calif has enough smart students to fill all their campuses. </p>
<p>"Housing prices in CA are high BECAUSE taxes are so low- So, that means that the home-owner in CA pays a lot to buy the house (with or without mortgage debt), and then pays less in prop taxes. "</p>
<p>The new buyer of a million dollar property in Calif would pay $20,000 in state property taxes. This is considered LOW?
Housing prices are high in Calif because of supply and demand issues in many desirable areas where jobs are concentrated, just like in NY City. </p>
<p>“Doesn’t Cal have a system where if someone owned the house for 20 years, the value stays as it was 20 years ago?”
Property valuation and property taxes can be and typically are raised 2% per year. They never stay the same.</p>
<p>^^Yes, Bovertine. All property is reassessed at the then current rate when it is sold. Long-time homeowners are protected against inflation, particularly fixed-income seniors who were being driven from their homes due to rising taxes prior to Prop 13).</p>
<p>texas: property assessments can rise as much as 2% each year. They are not fixed indefinitely.</p>
<p>But to all: don’t forget that property tax is just one tax bucket. California has one of the highest sales tax rates in the nation, and one of the highest income tax rates in the nation. So sure, California’s property tax is much, much lower than than of Texas, but then Texas has a zero income tax.</p>
<p>May be thats what Buffett was proposing - setting more realistic appraisals. He gave the example of his old home in Omaha having a much higher appraisal after 30 years than beachfront property in california which was worth 3 or 4 times the appraised value if he sold it. </p>
<p>Do UCs receive any home owner property taxes though? In Texas they fund the community colleges along with schools with our taxes but I am not sure any property tax revenue goes to colleges outside the county based on the breakdown shown on my tax bill. We seem to be paying 1.16% to the school system and 0.1 to community colleges.</p>
<p>MPM-
First one was not a correction- but an addition!</p>
<p>Many people have a tough time selling their homes ANYwhere because of this re-appraisal to the sales price system. </p>
<p>If you look at $ per sq ft, and apply the local tax rate, you will see that CA is very competitive with other comparable SES areas, even at the boomer pricing.</p>
<p>“The new buyer of a million dollar property in Calif would pay $20,000 in state property taxes. This is considered LOW?”</p>
<p>Look at property taxes in Madison, WI or northern New Jersey. $20k property tax is a pretty average tax burden in high-performing school districts. Here in coastal southern Maine (which varies a great deal town to town, but in my community) a $1 million oceanfront homeowner will pay more like $30,000 in annual property taxes.</p>
<p>One of the reasons a Prop. 13-style referendum was defeated twice in the past 10 years in Maine is that young families are disproportionally hurt by it, and it effectively shuts out newcomers from communities (for a lot of reasons too long to go into here).</p>
<p>Again, that is only looking at one data point; one source of state funding.</p>
<p>Sales tax in NJ is 7%. Sales tax in WI is 5%. Also 5% in Mr. Buffet’s home state of Nebraska.</p>
<p>Large swatches of California had sales tax rates approaching 10% last June. While they dropped 1% on July 1 bcos the Legislature couldn’t get its act together, rates are still 8.5% in San Francisco, and above 9% in several cities.</p>
<p>Top income tax rate in California is 10.3%; 9.3% for singles with income over $46k. WI is 7.75%. Nebraska is 6.8%. NJ = 8.97%.</p>