Deterioration of UCLA

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of California - Los Angeles
81

<p>BayBoi10,</p>

<p>The public purpose is fulfilled because the schools still largely remain publicly funded as far as tuition purposes go. In other words, you still are able to receive the education at significantly lower cost than at comparable private universities.</p>

<p>I’m also not saying it’s perfect. It’s not. In fact, I think it’s a bum compromise. However, all of the top public research universities need massive amounts of money to remain competitive in research, and no states have that kind of tax revenue to throw around.</p>

<p>My point is that the UCs already rely on private funding. Same applies for Michigan and most of the rest of the top publics. This is not really a secret. And how those universities continue to carry out their public missions has been a challenge. However, I think that the UCs have done a commendable job given the limitations and challenges they face.</p>

82

<p>i declare UCLAri the winner!!</p>

83

<p>GrassBandit,</p>

<p>Unfortunately, nobody is really winning: in a way, BayBoi is right: the UCs are going through a very tough period that may damage their ability to remain competitive with their peer institutions for years to come. </p>

<p>Furthermore, it is true that private funding comes with challenges that public funding does not present: namely, donors with stipulations. While the UCs have been thus far able to avoid taking donations with severe limitations–I’m thinking about the Turkish seat in the history department that would have stopped the teaching of the Armenian genocide-- there’s no telling how much more open to these limitations schools may be in the next few years. </p>

<p>My point all along has been that it’s not limited to UCLA. This is a problem all of the publics face, including Cal and Michigan. Michigan has dealt with this for years/decades, and while they have thrived, it’s hard to say exactly what kind of institution it really is anymore. These hybrid universities are interesting beasts, to say the least.</p>

<p>I really don’t want anyone to think that I’m insensitive to the challenges faced by UCLA. I’m not. I just also don’t want people buying into apocalyptic visions of Visigoth-esque sackings, either. UCLA will be perfect viable for a long time as a place for someone to get a good solid education. It just won’t be as easy as it was for me almost a decade ago.</p>

84

<p>Okay, again, you are comparing publics-to-privates. What do you say when you compare the UCs to other public universities? Data shows that the UCs are not a cheap alternative when one compares the total cost of attendance with other elite publics.</p>

<p>US NEWS TOP PUBLICS:</p>

<ol>
<li>University of California–Berkeley IS=$30,972 OS=$53,851</li>
<li>University of California–Los Angeles IS=$29,702 OS=$52,581</li>
<li>University of Virginia IS=$21,660 OS=$43,660</li>
<li>University of Michigan–Ann Arbor IS=$25,203 OS=$49,451</li>
<li>University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill IS=$19,014 OS=$38,370</li>
<li>College of William and Mary IS=$22,166 OS=$42,330</li>
<li>Georgia Institute of Technology IS=$18,330 OS=$36,540</li>
<li>University of California–San Diego IS=$27,960 OS=$50,839</li>
<li>University of Illinois–Urbana-Champaign IS=$27,082 OS=$41,224</li>
<li>University of Wisconsin–Madison IS=$20,283 OS=$35,033</li>
</ol>

<p>The UCs are not a cheap alternative, because several CA residents can go to other comparable institutions at a lower cost paying out-of-state cost. Also, if we follow the Michigan Model it will only increase fees and indeed ruin the public mission because the UCs will price out most residents. Keep in mind the average household income in California is $69,659. How can the state suggest median families to pay half of family income per year one of their 2.5 children. Further, the residents that can afford to pay opt to attend private universities because of superior resources. Do you suggest families that cannot afford to attend be crammed in the inferior CSU and CCC system? Why can’t they receive a UC education?</p>

<p>Moreover, the LA Times article that I previously linked said this about the UCs using the Michigan Model: </p>

<p>(Top of page 3.)
"But [UC] also faces a unique challenge, given its size and the needs of the state. UC doesn’t have the same options as many other state systems, observes James J. Duderstadt, president emeritus of the University of Michigan, which he helped shepherd through its transition from full state support. Michigan’s shrinking population of young persons allowed the university to ramp up its out-of-state population paying full freight (now more than 35% of undergraduates) while insulating state residents from rising tuition and fees.</p>

<p>Systemwide, out-of-state residents today account for only 7.6% of UC undergraduates. It’s doubtful whether raising that percentage much more is politically tenable, given the overwhelming in-state demand for slots. Some experts also question whether UC really has enough appeal to attract a large cadre of nonresidents at private-university tuition rates, especially as seats in the most popular classes become scarcer. Facilities and other amenities would have to be upgraded, cutting into the profit margin from out-of-staters.</p>

<p>Nor will it be easy to supplement state funds from private sources, one of Yudof’s goals. Most private contributions to universities, says Jane Wellman, director of the Delta Project, a Washington think tank on higher-education issues, target specific programs, not the general educational functions that are most affected by cutbacks in Sacramento. “Privatization means raising tuition,” Wellman says. “There is no other major source of revenue.”"</p>

<p>I’m curious, what is your response to that?</p>

<p>Note: Yes this is not specific to UCLA, but UCLA is more at risk because it is the Regents second priority after Berkeley. My other main point, like LAGirl11 said, the Regents will save Berkeley before any other UC.</p>

85

<p>BayBoi,</p>

<p>First off, I’m curious what it is you dislike so much about UCLA? You seem hell bent on telling everyone on this forum that UCLA is some muckhole. </p>

<p>Now, my answers to your questions:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>No, I’m not suggesting that. But let’s consider a few things, here.</p>

<p>The UCs built their reputations on research. Berkeley, UCLA, UCSD? All known for their amazing research. Research of the caliber that they conduct costs a lot of money. My fianc</p>

86

<p>“First off, I’m curious what it is you dislike so much about UCLA? You seem hell bent on telling everyone on this forum that UCLA is some muckhole.”</p>

<p>Simply, UCLA is a good university, but it pales in comparison to other California comparable schools. Berkeley beats it in engineering, sciences, and basically everything. UCSD beats it in bio and other sciences, Pomona beats it in liberal arts, and USC beats its professional and film programs. Stanford trumps all. UCLA will always come 2nd or 3rd in California. Why should freshmen choose to attend UCLA when Berkeley, UCSD, and USC offer better alternatives. I leave out Stanford, because if one got into UCLA they most likely got into Berkeley, UCSD, and USC, while very few people get into Stanford.</p>

<p>I came on CC and I was confronted by tons of people building up UCLA to some sort of elite university. I just wanted to be the voice that lets lurking perspective freshmen know that UCLA reputation on CC is not the reality. I have gotten quite a bit of back-lash, but I expected it. My voice will still be heard and perspective freshmen will have a well balanced opinion when deciding which university or which UC to pick from. </p>

<p>In addition, I found this thread and thought it was very relevant to my feelings. My feelings are that UCLA’s reputation has and will continue to deteriorate given this economic climate and freshmen should consider this fact as well. </p>

<p>"The UCs built their reputations on research. Berkeley, UCLA, UCSD? All known for their amazing research. Research of the caliber that they conduct costs a lot of money. My fianc</p>

87

<p>

</p>

<p>Let me give you a different perspective. That of a nearing-30 working adult. </p>

<p>NOBODY CARES.</p>

<p>There you go. I said it. Nobody cares. In the real world, nobody cares that Berkeley is a great research university. Nobody cares that UCLA is a great research university. Top 10 means NOTHING. UCLA vs. USC? Nobody cares. UCLA vs. Cal? Nobody cares.</p>

<p>You go into an interview with Berkeley, UCLA, UCSD under your belt and it’s all pretty much equal outside of what YOU accomplished. </p>

<p>And yes, you’re right: UCLA loses out to Cal and UCSD in a lot of areas for rankings, but the research being done at UCLA is easily in the same league. Don’t believe me? Check out the grants being given to UCLA by the NRF and the other grant making bodies. UCLA is pretty high up there. UCLA also has a roughly comparable number of people in the academies, and does pretty well each year in cited work. We’re splitting hairs here, mate. We’re trying to argue MICRON differences at this level. It’s essentially meaningless which school you choose in the end, because it’s such an individual matter.</p>

<p>And really, what do you care if people are proud of UCLA? Let them be proud of it. How does that diminish your work and your alma mater in any way?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Jebus. When did I say otherwise? I didn’t! I’m saying that research costs money, and money has to come from somewhere. Heck, I remember reading last year about how Wisconsin was considering repositioning itself to no longer compete with top private universities as far as research goes because it’s just too expensive. This is something facing all of the top publics.</p>

<p>For the record, I have a ton of respect for many schools that people on this site regularly snub, so don’t try to peg me as some ubersnob. I’m not. Well, not about schools anyway. I’m definitely a whiskey and wine snob, however…</p>

<p>And $100K? I said hundreds OR thousands of dollars. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>No offense, but what evidence do you have of this? It seems to me that you’re being as overly optimistic as you’re accusing me of being!</p>

<p>And really, if that were the case, why would I then attend Cal anyway? It seems to me that you’re just arguing against the UCs in general, but slightly so against Cal because dagnabbit you want that Cal degree to be oh-so-valuable. If the UC ship sinks, then we all go down. Meet you at the bottom. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Admin costs aren’t the bulk of the costs, though! It’s the cost of hiring the best faculty, having world-class facilities, pulling top-notch grad students, etc. that costs the university money. Cutting admin costs is a more mops kind of solution to a flooding spigot. It’s not going to accomplish anything but make the admins even surlier than they already are.</p>

<p>And before you tell me that it’s only UCLA, let me make this clear: I spent plenty of time talking to people at Cal when I was choosing, and I attended UCSD for grad school. I have a lot of experience with UCLA and UCSD and at least some familiarity with Cal. I know that all of the UCs operate roughly the same. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Yeah? And so is Cal. So is Stanford. So is Harvard, Yale…etc. Branding is damned important, and you can bet your butt that the UC will do its best to maintain their best brands.</p>

88

<p>@UCLAri: just ignore BayBoi10. I dont think whatever you say will change his opinion.</p>

89

<p>uclastudent1,</p>

<p>My point isn’t to change his mind. It’s to provide a counter weight to his opinions so that people can have something else to base their decision on. I figure he’s not likely to change his mind, and that’s his right. I just don’t want people to worry that UCLA isn’t a viable option for college, because it really is.</p>

90

<p>Thank you UCLAri! My son is seriously considering UCLA and his brother currently attends UCLA.</p>

91

<p>raffles88,</p>

<p>I hope your son finds a school with which he’s happy. I think UCLA offers a lot for almost any student, but it’s always best to scope things out first. </p>

<p>Is your older son happy there? If so, odds are in his younger brother’s favor…</p>

92

<p>UCLAri, </p>

<p>Now that we had some time to calm down, do you see where I’m coming from? You said before that what I say is true, then why did you get so upset? The only topic we truly disagreed on was privatization, which I suggested we should agree to disagree and end it. I’m sorry that you got upset, but I felt it was a very informative thread and we both gave great and valid points. </p>

<p>Also, we both know that it matters and quite a few people care. If it was not so then CC would not be as popular as it is, you would not be a super moderator with 10,644 post, and there wouldn’t be as many viewers on this thread as there is. </p>

<p>I’m sorry if you read my tone wrong, but I was coming from a concerned place for the UCs and genuinely wanted to know what your responses were. There are tons of people on each UC campus that have the same ideas and feelings I have, and as I said before, I wanted to give them a voice. </p>

<p>I hope we are square now.</p>

<p>Cheers</p>

93

<p>BayBoi,</p>

<p>The only thing that I found upsetting was that you turned immediately to personal attacks, including literal smears on my character, instead of debating your points.</p>

<p>I think you are correct to be concerned about the UCs, but I think you also are far too apocalyptic about the future. Where you see a sort of Armageddon, I see a bump in the road and a long-term recovery and growth.</p>

94

<p>It’s hardly Armageddon, but the UCs will not recover for quite sometime. This much is true and has been told by Yudof and Block.</p>

95

<p>Sure, but what do you personally gain by badmouthing a school you don’t attend? Especially when any UCs are pretty much in the same boat. All I’m saying is that running around and saying, “UCLA is teh suck” rings hollow when you’re then saying that UCSD is SO MUCH BETTER in other threads.</p>

<p>UCSD will be just as hurt by this as UCLA, and Cal won’t be far behind.</p>

<p>I think it does people a lot more good to be fair when evaluating the programs and recognize that not everyone is looking for the same things in a college experience. If someone personally is quite satisfied with UCLA-- as I was, for example-- then how does that hurt you?</p>

<p>It doesn’t. Let people be happy. There’s no rational reason for denying other people their happiness.</p>

96

<p>Again, I’m sorry if you feel hurt or threatened that your school is losing prestige and academic quality. It’s not my fault and I definitely don’t wish that it was true, but it is. I understand you and other bruins are sensitive when it comes to your school, because of that I will try to be less brash. But, I’m not going to say that UCLA is an amazing school, with stellar academics, and intelligent student body, when it’s simply not true (on the undergraduate level.)</p>

<p>I’ll end on a positive note. UCLA has a beautiful campus, this much is true. But, I feel there needs to be more than just looks when it comes to choosing a university.</p>

97

<p>Worst ■■■■■ I’ve seen in a long time.</p>

98

<p>Worst case of Asperger’s I’ve seen in a long time.</p>

99

<p>pick and imrightuarewrong,</p>

<p>Way to represent UCLA. Thank you for being great examples.</p>

100

<p>More ■■■■■■■■ from Bayboi</p>