<p>You know there are other places to study on campus, not just libraries. How bout cafe’s, study halls, dorm study halls (even if you dont stay at the dorms) cafeterias.etc</p>
<p>You can’t really study in a dining hall - they’re really loud. I study at Bru Caf every once in a while. Outside is pretty nice but can be distracting. There are those study rooms you can check out in some of the dorms…</p>
<p>Hello, I came across this thread when LAGIRL11 linked to it at the UC Riverside page. I am a UCR incoming second-year student.</p>
<p>I am concerned about UCLA’s reputation as well. It’s an outstanding school, with incredibly incontestable good reason. It’s unfortunate to hear about the . The same is happening at UCR as well. We had a total library budget of about $1.3 million for the last fiscal year and it was proposed to be cut down 300,000; I would not be surprised if this would turn out to be much, much less. I’m not meaning to make this a pity story for UCR (I know everyone is suffering because these cuts are across the board) but reading over this thread has made me realize that the current economic situation just seems to make the possibility of UCR becoming more reputable and respected (something that UCLA and UCB have experienced) that much more seemingly unattainable. I disagree with cutting the arts even further – about two-thirds of the UCR student body is enrolled in the College of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences so that would affect UCR pretty deeply. Nodnarb made some excellent points.</p>
<p>I’m sure most of you have heard about a UCSD professor’s proposal to close smaller campuses and to drop the pretense that all campuses are created equal. If that were to happen, then I think the larger campuses should shoulder most of the cuts (Everyone knows that there are wide differences in funding for the individual campuses). Now that would be really unfair, now wouldn’t it?
I agree with LAGIRL11 in thinking that closing the smaller campuses would only worsen the situation, and for the same reasons mentioned. It would just have way too many negative repercussions. The lower UC campuses were not tacked on just to act as a buffer for the brunt of emergencies. These campuses are needed and are saturated with students. A lot of us choose to stay within the state for the very fact that it’s cheaper. Where would the students of the closed campuses go? It would seem like we were just dumping our problem on another system so they could solve it. I think the responsibility to preserve excellence lies in confronting this situation as a whole, not in killing off your own young.</p>
<p>before getting to excited about closing a library early, google it. (Hint: it’s a specialized library on campus…the main undergrad “College” library is where they hang out.)</p>
<p><a href=“Everyone%20knows%20that%20there%20are%20wide%20differences%20in%20funding%20for%20the%20individual%20campuses”>quote</a>.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Source of state funding, please? (And, no, federal research grants don’t count.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I disagree. UC could easily raise the minimum gpa and, with the money saved from lower admissions, the state could funnel it to the Cal State system and educate even more kids with the same $$ (since the costs/per student are lower). Let’s face it, earning a 3.0 in most California high schools is not difficult. And, does every 3.0 student NEED to attend a RESEARCH uni?</p>
<p>
Maybe, maybe not.</p>
<p>Kinda rough to be contemplating restricted admissions for next year’s class and thereafter. I wonder if the discussion would be different if currently admitted students were also subject to this idea. 
:O</p>
<p>Let’s look for the low hanging fruit first. E.g. there should be a search for wasted $$$. Every organization has it. For example, this summer the City of Los Angeles found that they were paying one million a year for phone lines that are no longer in use and have been disconnected.</p>
<p>[I disagree. UC could easily raise the minimum gpa and, with the money saved from lower admissions, the state could funnel it to the Cal State system and educate even more kids with the same $$ (since the costs/per student are lower). Let’s face it, earning a 3.0 in most California high schools is not difficult. And, does every 3.0 student NEED to attend a RESEARCH uni?]</p>
<p>I completely agree… to earn a 3.0…you gotta like what…show up to classs? if UCs raised the minimum GPA…then all those people who just go to one of the lower UCs to have a UC degree could go to a cal state… which costs wayyyyyyyyyy less. and idk…that money could be used for the higher prestige UCs…? idk… California should focus more on the UCs that are top notch like SD and Berkeley and LA… and there goes my completely biased UCLA student opinion. sorry if i offended anyone from the lower UCs… :/</p>
<p>Well you have to understand that the UC’s are run by the government, whose purpose is to make education more generally available instead of focusing all their money on only the top UC’s and making them more prestigious.</p>
<p>If these “top notch” UCs don’t want the burden of paying for the “bottom” UCs, then they should break away from the UC system and increase tuition to 50k per year. This way, they can continue to be world class and avoid the cuts while the lower UCs get more funds from the government to sustain their programs.</p>
<p>berkeley and ucla should just become private schools… lol</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, exactly. And we’ve already heard from the Chancellor, who said that closing down the lower-tier UCs is out of the question. </p>
<p>I don’t think we should cut more money from the arts. They’ve already had some of the largest cuts, and arts are academic areas as well. I think it’d be wiser to cut more money from sports. Don’t get me wrong, sports are great, fitness is great, and in an ideal world, they’re great! But, face it, they’re not academic. Is it really the state’s job to provide our schools with sports teams, many of which are mediocre?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh, c’mon. Just those schools? Face it, there’s a big difference between students at UCI, UCSB, and UCD and those at CSUs. And even if a lot of the UCR and UCM students are more like those at CSUs, they ARE part of the UC system and instead of placing the blame on them, we should work at this together. After all, we are ALL facing the SAME budget cuts, and the students at lower-tier UCs aren’t costing us more money than those at Cal or UCLA. Plus, closing down those schools would be a big waste of resources, IMO. It makes me sad to imagine those big, plentiful campuses empty.
I wish people would stop pointing fingers at our other campuses and instead focus on solutions that would actually be plausible. We are all in the UC system.</p>
<p>I agree with oldmanbiker. Theres tons of money out there no one is paying attention to/knows about. I was so frustrated when I found out Mayor Villaraigosa used $1 million dollars from a “private fund” to pay for the rest of the Laker parade. Are you kidding me? This was only a couple weeks within the time they announced the possibility of Cal Grants being cut. If a city/state is just going to have money lying around gathering interest they might as well save if for an emergency not **** it away on things like that.</p>
<p>dissonance: it would make the most sense to get rid of sports, but i honestly doubt that even 5% of UCLA’s student body would support that. I know I wouldnt</p>
<p>Okay okay I guess closing down any of the campuses wouldn’t be a very good idea, but I will still say that there is no reason why California needs so many UC’s. And with regards to sports, yea they aren’t academic at all, but they are central to UCLA’s greatness. Don’t forget that a large part of why UCLA’s is so well know is due to its sports teams.<br>
I still think that cutting aid is something that should be done. UCLA costs what a third or less than comparable schools. Go to a cal state if you need it cheaper than that.</p>
<p>They purposely cut things that will cause us to make a thread like this. I’d like to see a cut to administration/management. Some positions there really aren’t needed.</p>
<p>rpciton you are exactly right. </p>
<p>Mayor Villarigosa and his crooks at the state department are cutting critical services to show Californians that they should have voted YES on the extended tax increases through 2011 and 2012. We voted no on that prop in May and these jackasses are throwing it in our faces by cutting the budgets for state parks, furlowing state workers, cutting at the LAPD, cutting firefighters saying “86 firefighters does not make a significant difference” that was straight out of Villarigosa’s mouth, can you believe this clown? Laying off firefighters at the start of fire season in southern california during record heat waves?!?! And to top it all off, they raised tuition costs and cut state education budgets for all majors UC’s, especially CSU’s (they are getting hit really hard) Instead of cutting the least important services (for example, top of the line health insurance for convicted felons in state prisons) they try to prove a point by punishing Californian’s because we didn’t vote for their stupid bill. I can’t believe these idiots in LA keep voting for this ass clown. They need to think before casting a ballot, but I guess that’s impossible.</p>
<p>Cutting Mens Basketball and Mens Football would be a loss of all athletic income. Those two sports support all other sports and the entire athletic budget. Now if you mean cut all the sports nobody cares about, and use the revenue of the money making sports to support education and financial aid, then you have a point.</p>
<p>
Yes, that’s what I meant. There are obviously a lot of surplus teams that don’t really get anywhere, and that don’t attract crowds… and getting rid of those would make a lot more sense. I’m all for fitness, but if the athletes really aren’t that GREAT then perhaps they can take a part in leading intramural teams on their campuses. And plus, it would raise academic standings, because instead of recruiting pretty good athletes to come build some mediocre teams we have at our school, we could make room for students who would bring more to the academic setting. Obviously, it would be nice to be able to build up some of our more average or bad teams, but in times like this, we shouldn’t be hoping for that.</p>
<p>^You mean cut the UCLA teams that don’t do well? Frankly that doesn’t cut very many. Plus there’s the issue of Title IX. Obviously it would be nice to just cut some teams that suck or lose a ton of money, but it’s really not that simple.</p>
<p>This is exactly what I’ve been talking about people.</p>
<p>necro post ftw.</p>