The difference on these forums is that New Jersey students often want to go anywhere but Rutgers or other New Jersey publics, rather than griping that Rutgers is too selective so that they do not get admitted.
So to summarize the griping, there is a confluence of wants that cannot all be satisfied together:
A. Student wants to attend a “prestigious” (i.e. more selective) UC, but is angry that those are so selective that they do not admit him/her.
B. Student thinks that the less “prestigious” (i.e. less selective, more likely to admit) UCs or their students are “beneath” him/her.
C. People want the UCs to use their full capacity to enroll students, but are unenthusiastic about personally making use of that increased capacity at UCR or UCM.
D. But when the UCs use their full capacity, they have issues like oversubscribed impacted majors, making it more competitive to get into those majors, more difficult to change majors, and more difficult for students in other majors to take those courses as out-of-major electives.
E. Then they want out-of-state enrollment reduced, so that more capacity can be used for in-state enrollment.
F. But then they do not want to pay more tuition to make up for the loss of out-of-state revenue.
G. And then they keep griping about taxes that are used to subsidize in-state students.
H. And have clearly stated at the ballot box that the spending priorities for the taxes that are collected are K-12, community colleges, and prisons.
I. Many say that the UCs (and other universities) can and should cut costs. The UCs are already an economy-class experience (e.g. big classes, at least in popular majors) compared to some other universities, but it is likely that many of those suggesting cost-cutting may not want to go even more economy-class like at universities in Canada and Europe.
J. Never mind the race-based griping about Asian tiger kids outcompeting their kids, or the supposedly unfair racial preferences (that do not exist) for URMs.
My daughter is attending a European University at full out of country costs and her classes are smaller than they would be at a UC, the price is about the same and so far all of her lectures, labs and tutorials are taught by full phds.
This is one of the most significant aspects that jumps out at me from this thread. This is the case for nearly every public or private college in the top 50, to a lesser extent with a continuum on down the rankings. The higher ranked the school, the more selective and more uncertain admission becomes.
Responding only to #l of @ucbalumnus, administrative bloat and excessive salaries are certainly issues at the UCs., according to a state audit. As a taxpayer, I’d be very happy to see funds diverted to those items that would directly benefit students–paying professors (rather than administrators) more, hiring additional professors, lowering class sizes, and adding sufficient classes so that students are more easily able to graduate in four years. Unfortunately, I’ve seen next to no action from the Board of Regents to address these issues. http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-university-of-california-administration-1493137774-htmlstory.html
@ucbalumnus hits the nail on the head here: Student wants to attend a “prestigious” (i.e. more selective) UC, but is angry that those are so selective that they do not admit him/her.
Every taxpayer wants their state university to be prestigious and selective, but not so prestigious that their own kids can’t get in.
Nope. I don’t care how prestigious my state university is, as long as it can provide a great education and access to the jobs or grad programs the kids want and need.
Regarding “E” of @ucbalumnus list, I think 20% OOS students is an acceptable number. I am not for shutting those students out of UCs. That just makes parents in other states angry about CA students attending their own tax-payer supported schools, and there is value in bringing in some US diversity. However, I don’t think that 20% number includes international students. So, actually about 30% at UCs would not be from CA.
@TTdd16, but if you cut down administrators, that also means less of the support staff that people seem to think come with an elite (or even regular American) college experience, such as career counselors, mental health counselors, IT support staff, gym support staff, study-abroad administrators, administrators for special centers, speaker series, etc. etc.
As it is, I doubt the UC’s have kept up with the Ivies in administrator growth.
Again, it doesn’t seem as if the German (or Cal State) college experience is what people want at the UCs.
@VickiSoCal, it’s definitely a good option.
Note, though, that the uni your D attends makes it far easier for full-pay Internationals (Americans) to get in than (nearly-nonpaying) Scots.
Not saying you do, but it’s hard to grouse about there not being enough spots for CA residents at UCs due to so many OOS/Internationals at UCs when CA residents can take advantage of the reverse situation at unis in other states/countries.
Re #304 and #308
Administrative bloat is an easy target to generalize about, but it is likely that each piece of bloat exists for a reason that, when considered by itself, is popular, or at least acceptable to most people. And those who need or want a particular function tend to be more vocal than those who may see it in particular as wasteful bloat.
Putting every bit of administrative function on the table together and trying to cut it would mean some hard (often political) choices.
Definitely a major sense of entitlement where it is Berkeley, UCLA or bust for many that will not get in there. Davis, Merced, Riverside, and Santa Cruz all have many programs in US News Top 100 where one will receive a top notch education. However, “undesirable” inland “rural” location (and/or low tier) for those spoiled ones that have to be by the big city or beach leads many out of state paying twice the cost or more for a lesser education than ANY UC can provide!!
Way too many kids go to college. Period. A sensible K-12 education system should have no more than 15-20% - at most - going on to traditional 4 year colleges. It’s a colossal waste of resources. So much pressure could be alleviated by a more rational educational system.
@satchelsf I agree! We need more direct entry programs into decent careers. Also, pathways for kids to actually work in an industry for a few years, save some money and then decide if they need an advanced degree.
I think that the number of people who diss UCR is significantly higher on this forum than in the California where I live. My students would love to go to UCR. Or CalState Long Beach. They can’t get in because they have Bs and less than stellar test scores. They have less than stellar test scores because it never occurred to them that Bs weren’t good enough to get into a university, and they don’t know how to play the game, as so many parents here do. They have been told all their lives that if they work hard, they can get into a CalState or a local UC. No one bothered to tell them they were attending a segregated school that was drastically underperforming. The idea that they could go to Scotland is, frankly, laughable. How nice for you that your child has so many options, but really, if that is our contingency plan, we are in serious trouble as a state education system. My students are not entitled. They are disenchanted, and that often turns to bitterness. Thankfully, they are more open-hearted than many of the adults I see, so I think they’ll turn that disenchantment into something other than bitterness.
@ccprofandmomof2 – interesting (and refreshing!) insider perspective. But I do have a question: aren’t CA community college students pretty much guaranteed transfer to Cal State or certain UCs provided they meet all the requirements?
I can tell you, few students in the world have the option of ending up with a degree from a world-class research university if they can’t get into it as first-year students.
I think don’t think the problems is students should not go to college, they just didn’t really think through what is the appropriate college for them. It would be great if we could eliminate the ranking system. California carefully set up three systems (UC, Cal States, CC) targeting different directions to accommodate the various interests of its young citizen. You want to go into research, be a doctor, be an international artist, then you choose a UC. If you want to be a teacher, go into social work, be a manager of a company, or another skill that applied advanced skills but not a doctorate, the Cal States are for you. If you wanted to do something demanding specific technical skills or more classes to prepare you for new job or education, the community college filled that need. The problem is that we have assigned good, better, best to this division, and we all want our children to be in the “best” category. When I worked at one of the UC’s I worked with countless students that did not need what a UC provided. Some always new they wanted to be an elementary teacher, others firefighters or police officers. But they were very smart kids, and wanted a top university experience. Unfortunately there isn’t enough spots for that.
I think you hit the nail on the head. Even for kids with college educated parents, the complete change in the landscape can take them by surprise. When my D1 went through high school, I assumed that a mix of A’s and B’s was great! Who could expect more from a kid? Who in their right mind would expect a kid to never slip up, never have a bad day or a bad class? I was shocked when we started looking at colleges, that apparently that is exactly what was expected by so many places. I was shocked that schools that were safeties for B students when I went through, were suddenly incredibly selective. I was shocked by how much the price of private schools have increased. I can only imagine how difficult this process must be for first gen families.
Who would decide which students would be permitted to attend college? And how would they choose? I think an educated populace is important, and refusing to allow students to attend so others have a better chance of getting into the elite school they want is a horrible idea.
What’s wrong with UC Merced? I thought students who didn’t get accepted to other CA publics were automatically considered for Merced. Do they reject a lot of students?
@katliamom The guaranteed transfer is very limited, and it often takes a long time to get the courses they need and complete them with the grades that they need to get. (Hence the number of students who drop a course if they get a B on their first test or assignment.) You can go to your local CC site and search for TAG. On paper, it’s a great system. In practice, it has a lot of problems. For most CC campuses, as far as I know, UCLA and UCB are not part of TAG at all. So that rules out the “local” UC for a good proportion of our state’s population. (You have to realize that many kids are discouraged by their family obligations from leaving home, and their “local” college just happens to be highly prestigious. Many would probably prefer it wasn’t!) I know at my campus, you can’t TAG to UCB, UCLA, or UCI. The path to the local CalState is usually the most-travelled path for CC transfer students, in my orbit. I’m sure it’s different depending on which CC you are talking about. I just want people to question the PR and the rhetoric around the entire transfer process a little, because the stats do not bear out the promises in many cases. Fifteen years ago, I would have encouraged my own kids to go to a CC. Now, honestly, I wouldn’t let them. It’s too much of a risk, for too little possible reward, and the opportunity cost of the lost time is too high. That makes me incredibly sad.