i got into too many schools...help?

[fallenchemist]

<p>I just want to point out that one of the people that vociferous must be including in those that are “completely ignorant of the realities of the UC system” is the President of the University of California, Mark Yudof</p>

<p>

@Yudof

The problem is we get $2.6 billion from the state. We’re down from $3.4 billion, and that’s the core money for undergraduate education: the Spanish department, the anthropology department, all the wonderful things that we need to do. And we’re struggling to come up with the money to sustain that basic undergraduate education. …it is worrisome that over the last 20 years, we have half as much money to spend per student. That is very worrisome. And ultimately, that goes to quality issues.

</p>

<p>$2.6 billion!!! But hey, they get little funding from the state according to our resident expert, vociferous. The total budget is $19 billion. Actually it is more than $2.6 billion out of the $19 billion total, because that is just for undergraduate education. There are more billions for specialized places like Lawrence Livermore Labs and many others that cannot redirect money anywhere else, but are in the UCal budget. In the end, almost half the $19 billion comes from the state. But let’s just go with the $2.6 billion number. Anyone out there care to give up 14% of their salary and not cut back on what they purchase, or claim it doesn’t affect the quality of their life? I am not saying that UCLA and Berkeley are not still great. They absolutely are. This is totally directed to a completely false and irresponsible statement by vociferous, who could have found all these same facts in the 10-15 minutes it took me.</p>

<p>OK, I know I am getting nasty now. I’ll stop, it just frosts me.</p>

[drax12]

<p>I was trying to work some numbers wrt the shortfall of funds for undergrad education.</p>

<p>When it refers to the shorting of the UC budget for undergrads, it obvoiusly refers to the funding by the state for the tuition of undergrads of all the nine or so campuses that have undergrads. </p>

<p>There’s a 10th, nineth?, and that would be UCSF, which is primarily a law school, UC Hastings; and a Med School, oddly enough called UCSF Med School, btw one of the best med schools in the country – not that you would want to go there topically. ;)</p>

<p>There are indeed nine campuses with undergrads, the newest being UC Merced (couldn’t remember, 8 or 9).</p>

<p>Each of the campuses each average out to around 20k+ undergrads, with UCLA and Berk having more, 26K and around 25K respectively.</p>

<p>So let’s say for argument, that there are around 200k undergrads in the UC system – I’m too lazy to look it up.</p>

<p>The shortfall will pass from the system as a whole to the individual schools according to the target enrollment each possesses.</p>

<p>Some of the schools have targeted enrollments reduced, but not the most popular, UCLA and Berk.</p>

<p>These two have kept enrollments firm, and have chosen to make up the shortfall by enrolling oos students and internationals. </p>

<p>Berk has targeted around a 20% non-Californian frosh enrollment, and UCLA maybe a bit less.</p>

<p>According to my numbers working backward – maybe that wasn’t necessary, maybe it’s stated explicitly somewhere, I found that Berk accepted around 74% of the acceptances from in state, and 26% non-CA residents. </p>

<p>For UCLA, I found 76% in-state, and 24% non-CA.</p>

<p>Because the yield is lower for non-CA residents, these numbers will drop, to maybe around 20% for each school.</p>

<p>Since the other UC schools don’t have the international rep to make up the difference of shortfall of funds with non-CA residents, then they will have to reduce enrollment. Reducing the enrollments, will cause more class cancellations, etc, which will show forth in more layoffs of staff, etc.</p>

<p>Of course we know that non-CA residents will pay the non-state augmented fees of around $20K I think it is added to the state fee, of around $10K, for a total of $30K or so, not to mention room and board, etc.</p>

<p>Btw, I wouldn’t worry about those who want to attend UCLA or Berk paying essentially private-school fees, there are lots of financially able internationals, esp, that would be more than glad to do so, because both schools’ reps internationally and professionally.</p>

<p>As whole system wise, back to the 200k undergrads, the increase of fees by 30% raised base tuition for instaters from just under $8k to a little over $10k, or maybe mid $10k. Still a good bargain.</p>

<p>This general campus-wide hike will raise approx $400M. </p>

<p>But then, there are those whose parents are below a level of income who don’t pay any tuition. Btw, I disagree with this; having a two, three-tiered tuiton plan isn’t right. All should have to pay a least something. But with adjustments upward and downward, I’m going to stick w/ my numbers.</p>

<p>Add to this, the two campuses Berk and UCLA enrolling internationals and oos students as the shortfall filtered down system-wide to the tow, and this should help in both schools avoiding a lot of the budget crunch that will hit some of the other seven campuses.</p>

<p>So I can see where vociferous is going with this, and I at least partly agree with him.</p>

[fallenchemist]

<p>I don’t doubt they will make up some of the money by raising tuitions, taking more out of staters, etc. But the story and the statements by Yudof are pretty clear that there are real issues out there regarding money, and the reports of specific actions taken at UCLA regarding fewer teachers, classes cut, etc. are real, not theoretical. I am not in any way saying this should be a deciding factor for everyone or even anyone in terms of going to a UC school, but it is a factor.</p>

<p>You know how much I promote Tulane, but they had to go through this and in some ways worse after Katrina. Entire engineering programs were cut. The very future of the university was in doubt and the enrollment the next year was way down. As most know, the comeback has been spectacular and Tulane is stronger than any time in its history. But we are talking about the UC system here. If one studies my threads I never hesitate to point out Tulane’s shortcomings in relation to the OP’s interests. I often recommend other schools when they seem more appropriate for that individual. In this case, the California budget crisis is real and one cannot know if there will be further big cuts in a year or 2 or 3. I do not think so, personally, but one ignores the possibility at some risk.</p>

<p>However, the real point I was making was that vociferous made a claim that was simply incorrect. And he didn’t just claim it, but said that people that claimed what is obviously the real truth didn’t know what they were talking about. Again, unless one wants to contradict the plain statements of the president of the UC, and ignore the actual cuts that have already been made at UCLA itself based on budget concerns, vociferous’ statement cannot be supported in any remote sense. People lose credibility when they cannot admit the bad with the good. No school is perfect, and certainly no school is perfect for everyone.</p>

[drax12]

<p>

I don’t doubt they will make up some of the money by raising tuitions, taking more out of staters, etc. But the story and the statements by Yudof are pretty clear that there are real issues out there regarding money, and the reports of specific actions taken at UCLA regarding fewer teachers, classes cut, etc. are real, not theoretical. I am not in any way saying this should be a deciding factor for everyone or even anyone in terms of going to a UC school, but it is a factor.

</p>

<p>There were cuts at the beginning, undoubtedly draconian - all cuts are draconian, because the university/system was caught between when the state budget was announced and prior to when they could make up the shortfall. Budgets on a state-level appear to be calendar-year – I would guess, I don’t really follow them that intently – and for universities like UC, they are probably are academic=year.</p>

<p>No one’s denying that there aren’t problems fiscally with the UC, absolutely no one. And a little later, I’ll give my opinion, not taht it should matter, wrt vociferous’ quotes.</p>

<p>

You know how much I promote Tulane, but they had to go through this and in some ways worse after Katrina. Entire engineering programs were cut. The very future of the university was in doubt and the enrollment the next year was way down. As most know, the comeback has been spectacular and Tulane is stronger than any time in its history.

</p>

<p>I remember…</p>

<p>I know someone who had to attend Tamu to continue her education, after Katrina hit, along with other students who were sent off to various other universities. Good for Tulane…</p>

<p>

But we are talking about the UC system here. If one studies my threads I never hesitate to point out Tulane’s shortcomings in relation to the OP’s interests. I often recommend other schools when they seem more appropriate for that individual. In this case, the California budget crisis is real and one cannot know if there will be further big cuts in a year or 2 or 3. I do not think so, personally, but one ignores the possibility at some risk.

</p>

<p>And as you well know, I am not going to recommend UCLA, even not doing so in favor of a local community college, when I see a possible family budgetary concern for the OP, as you would say.</p>

<p>That’s a very important thing undoubtedly, 2, 3, 5, 10 years down the road. There’s a re-working of the unversity as a whole in the works, taht might include some drastic shifts in the UC state charter.</p>

<p>

However, the real point I was making was that vociferous made a claim that was simply incorrect. And he didn’t just claim it, but said that people that claimed what is obviously the real truth didn’t know what they were talking about. Again, unless one wants to contradict the plain statements of the president of the UC, and ignore the actual cuts that have already been made at UCLA itself based on budget concerns, vociferous’ statement cannot be supported in any remote sense. People lose credibility when they cannot admit the bad with the good. No school is perfect, and certainly no school is perfect for everyone.

</p>

<p>I don’t know the history between you two, but there’s obviously something obvoiusly going on.</p>

<p>I’ve seen a couple of times in which you seemed to want to refute at least somewhat vehemently what he stated. Me personally, I found the statements somewhat innocuous, but that’s me.</p>

<p>Just as your fellow green-waver stated after one of my posts a statement on the level of vociferous, somewhat short and absolute. For me, it’s hard to answer back to something like that.</p>

<p>Regarding voiferous’ claims:</p>

<p>

UCLA and Berkeley get little of their funding from the state.

</p>

<p>With respect to the total budget, I’d have to agree. Wrt undergrad education at the moment, no I don’t.</p>

<p>

It is fascinating how people completely ignorant of the realities of the UC system comment on it. NO there is not a mass exodus out of the UC system. UCLA is STILL the most applied to school in the country…

</p>

<p>Since he’s referring to students, what he said is true. Is there a brain-drain at UC wrt profs? Probably, but there are some really excellent tenured profs that have remained, including many Nobelists. Someone leaving from UC would probably do so because of the cost of living, real-estate, etc, in CA.</p>

<p>

…and UCLA and Berkeley could survive WITHOUT state funding if they had to.

</p>

<p>It’d take some time, and major planning…</p>

<p>One of the ideas in the works – I don’t know how viable it would be – would be to privatize one or both of the universities. One regent said to raise up tuition on a private level for both, and keep the tuition low the others; I’m assuming this would come with a reduction of enrollment at UCLA and/or Berk. </p>

<p>Some already call the tuition increases the last few years as a ‘privatizaton of UC,’ although if you look at the fees, they are still very respectable for in-staters.</p>

<p>There are even possible plans in the work to roll back tuition to prior levels. But this would take a lot of planning, even some sort of system-wide endowment, long-term loans to students, etc. to work. Either way, we’re at teh end of the overload of college-age eligibles, so I would think the enrollments to the UC should drop.</p>

[californication9]

<p>wow ok so this got intense lol</p>

<p>drax12 I posted on the UCLA board the night I visited udel so thats why I only included the two schools. I thought I was down to UDel and UCLA…but felt that giving up UCLA for UDel didn’t make sense so now I’m between
UCLA
UDel
Tulane
& American</p>

[californication9]

<p>oh and im looking into becoming a RA soph year at ucla to make it affordable</p>

[poetgrl]

<p>Just out of curiousity, do your parents have an opinion on any of this? A lot of times parents have a pretty good insight about these kinds of things. Now might be a good time to sit down with them and talk it out if they are good at helping you to clarify your thinking on things. JMO.</p>

[californication9]

<p>they want me to go to american. but honestly i dont see myself there at all.</p>

[poetgrl]

<p>Do you know why they want you to go to American? </p>

<p>What is it about American that you can’t ‘see’ for yourself?</p>

<p>Ultimately it’s your life and your decision, but your acceptances are all over the map in terms of size, location, type of school…what originally made you apply to these schools?</p>

[californication9]

<p>honestly i visited nowhere before applying so i just applied to all types of schools on purpose lol…and now im stuck =/</p>

<p>My parents like American because they have a awesome political science program. And honestly, I agree on that. But I don’t want to choose a school just because its good for one thing because I may change my mind, you know? Like American just seemed so small and boring I like fun exciting places. I just didn’t feel right there…I need a school with academics and spirit!</p>

[poetgrl]

<p>When you say spirit, do you mean sports teams?</p>

<p>I think this is valid.</p>

<p>Why did you decide against Cal?</p>

[californication9]

<p>yeah, like American doesnt even have a football team!! I’m a cheerleader and I need a football team!!! lol</p>

<p>I honestly never visited Cal. We didn’t have a lot of time to visit schools so my parents let me choose where in California I wanted to visit. I chose to go to LA because people just seem more relaxed at UCLA than Berkeley. I like that UCLA has strong academics but people are so friendly there. Like the high school I’m coming from is really cut throat competitive and Berkeley just seemed like it would be a continuation of my hs.</p>

[poetgrl]

<p>Okay, well here’s my suggestion, as a parent.</p>

<p>Get all the 411 together about the polisci at UCLA…I’m sure they are strong in this…</p>

<p>Write down all of your reasons for prefering UCLA and/or UDel, and talk it out with your parents. See if they will pay for UCLA…if not? Go to the school with the most spirit.</p>

<p>Good luck to you.</p>

[cellardweller]

<p>What is it that you didn’t like about Tulane? We just came back from a visit and our D loved the campus atmosphere. The students appeared happy and the professors very approachable. The honors program seemed especially attractive, with quite a few benefits without being segregated from the rest of the school. New Orleans is also a very interesting city with great culture and history. </p>

<p>In regards to quality of academics, Tulane has an excellent poli sci department and strong offerings in other areas as well. Our D loved their Political Economy program which was less narrowly focused than polisci. Outside of possibly science & engineering, I think Tulane has a lot to offer.</p>

[poetgrl]

<p>Upthread she mentions not wanting to go to school with her twin brother,who is going to Tulane.</p>

[californication9]

<p>yeah, as bad of a reason as it is my main thing against tulane right now is that i really dont want to go to school with my brother. we’re twins and…imagine being the twin your whole life, its not fun! also i want HIM to become more independent of me. right now he doesnt have a lot of his own friends and basically depends on me for my friends a lot. i really think it would be good for him if we went to different schools. and my parents completely agreed.</p>

<p>take this however you want it, im sure many will disagree but the main reason i originally put off tulane is because after i visited i just got the impression that the work ethic of many students there is not very strong. eveyone i talked to seem to have grades much lower than in hs, and these were honors students! they partied a lot then did work at like 2 am. i very easily distracted and i just need a environment i feel like i can focus in you know?</p>

[poetgrl]

<p>Well, you are going to find distractions on whichever campus you go to…and the bigger the campus, the more the distractions.</p>

<p>You really don’t have to be logical about this, though I see you trying very hard. Most kids decide on a college based on some mix of rank, location, size, culture, etc…</p>

<p>All you need to know is why you WANT to go to the school you want to go to. See if that will work with your parents. If not, then you have to find a different school on the list.</p>

<p>Again, good luck.</p>

[californication9]

<p>thanks so much =] im working on finding out about being a ra at ucla bc then it would be CHEAPER than american for my 2nd year, wish me luck!</p>

[vociferous]

<p>fallenchemist - get back to me when you look at the % of state funding UCLA gets and then get back to me when you realize it has been in decline consistently for decades, then get back to me when you do some research on UCLA’s Annual Fund and how they are using private donations to build a new Basketball arena. Okay pal ;-)</p>