I think in a few years once your daughter graduates from a really good school you will realize that your ranting is quite out of hand.
Competition lives everywhere, not just in your own back yard. It’s not about the spelling and misspelling of words for me, because I get it I use a phone a lot as well; however, it’s your attitude in general that turns me off to even your daughter because apples don’t fall far.
I am a recent graduate of UCI and it’s not your place to tell anyone they should or should not be there or at any other school. Your daughter’s grades get her in the same competition, but it doesn’t make her a winner. She will determine that over the choices that she makes over her lifetime.
It’s a shame parents put so much pressure on their children. If location means something to you then let her go to school in Hawaii or to Pepperdine. If she’s a UC caliber student she will find her way to one as a graduate student or take two years and transfer in.
The universities admit for a combination of different reasons and are not affirmative action. Saying that she comes from a minority heavy school is a little telling of how you feel about society. Saying you went to school back East is setting what type of example, I grew up “back East” and did community college “back East” and in “the South.”
I just don’t think some people realize that diversity means that they don’t need too many of the same people with the same boxes checked off and they are looking for other qualities that bring other viewpoints. That means yea someone that may look like you might get in, but you don’t know why so you just assume it’s because someone took some thing from you unjustly.
Bottom line…You pay taxes where you live and you live in California. Your child was given entry into a UC school, you just feel like your kid is too good to go to one of the schools she got into. Education is both a privilege (money) and a commodity (talent) in this country, schools are looking for both. Maybe she’s not at the talent level you think she is and you need to let her find herself and develop her talents through the choices in front of her now instead of fighting a battle on the internet you aren’t going to win.
I don’t live in CA but most kids get at least some rejections, especially from competitive programs. That isn’t unique to CA. IMO, Californians are lucky to have so many instate, quality options.
My daughter is very happy where she is going. I also think the school she is going to is a great school and I think she will be happy there and I think it is a perfect school for her. I appologize if I came off a certain way. I did not mean to. This is really not about my daughter. I was only using her as an example. Maybe she still would not have been admitted. I just feel that the system is wrong and we have an obligation to change things that are wrong. At a minimum I think the UC schools are confusing the students in that many students look at the student profile and think they have more than the credentials to get in but don’t. If I new what I know now when the application process started I would have had my daughter apply to more out of state schools. Because she was accepted to a number of out of state schools that are at the same level as the UC schools. Maybe you think I am being a hypocrit. But I just think we pay taxes in this state and I think the expectation by most parents is that the UC schools are primarily for California students.
Also the original idea was that the UC schools were for California residents and that the percent of non-residents should be lower. Private schools do not get taxpayer dollars. Many of us are suprised to see how many out if state and out of country students there are. Im not sure what your reference about me being from back East meant but when I am talking about devirsity I am not talking about race or religion. By the way I was a minority in the community I grew up in and was from a poor family. We have plenty of different races and religions in this state. Also I do not object to the idea of helping people less fortunate. I was only trying to show that this is a complicated issue. Believe it or not I also would not object to affirmative action. I think the UC System openly admits that the increase in the number of out of state and out of country students is due to the fact they needed the money not a desire to increase deversity through admitting out of state and out of country kids. In my opinion they should have figured out another way. When the going gets tough the tough get going. Again, this is my only issue. I just want more California kids to get In the UC schools. I don’t care what race, religion or economic conditions they come from. I think we should put it to a vote. I would also vote for more state funding.
I know that the UT Austin system is not perfect but I think it is better than California. I feel that at least the percent of Texas residents is higher.
I do think that the excellent transfer program provided at CCCs reduces the impact of issues discussed in these threads. It is so clear, almost too easy to TAG into a mid-tier UC (not UCB/LA/SD) and many people are successful at transferring into UCLA/UCB as well.
If a student is dead set on a UC, CCC’s make that it simple to get there.
I agree. But I am little suspect because I have heard from a number of people that it us difficult to accomplish everything you need to in two years and maybe UCLA, Berkeley and San Diego should be part of the TAG program. Why aren’t they? That said, if you get into the honors program I think you can transfer into those three schools. But if you do not go to a Community College and go to another non-UC school then it is difficult to transfer. Maybe they could figure out a way to make it easier to go out of state or to a Cal State school and transfer in.
Why would they want to let students who didn’t go to a CCC transfer back to a UC? Those students had the option of going to a CCC but decided not to. Going to a CCC is what the UC system wants those students to do. Keeps the revenue instate, the UCs know the quality of the courses being transferred in, and as you’ve argued, those spots go to California kids.
So if they want that revenue they why aren’t they accommodating them by letting them go straight to a 4 year college. This goes back to my point about allowing the non-residents to go to the community colleges. By the same token if there are California kids that are willing to go to a CCC because they want very badly to go to a UC school then there should be out of state and out of country kids that want to go bad enough. I realize this would only put a small dent in things and I realize that some kids go to CCC for financial reasons. I do think they make the path well defined under the TAG program, which is good.
Are you asking why don’t they privatize two of the cornerstones of the largest public research university system in the world.
Profit and non profit companies need funding, this is no different for education. In the public sector, which is already underfunded, they have to find ways of still providing a quality education to the students they can serve. This means subsidizing with foreign and out of state. At the same time as soon as students and parents hear about tuition increases, that’s not okay either. Everybody wants something with at least pain done to them as possible.
Education is a business, but the UC system is founded on being a public option. They aren’t going to privatize it because some rich people don’t like the fact that their child didn’t get a seat at the table they wanted to sit at.
But the parents that you know aren’t like the vast majority of California voters.
The UC System, by design, is only for the Top 12.5% of high school seniors. The parents of the Bottom 87.5% don’t actually care very much about UC admissions policies, because they aren’t targeting UCs for their kids anyway.
So let’s say you put it to a statewide vote: more state funding for more in-state slots. How will the Bottom 87.5% look at this proposition?
Well, “more state funding” means higher taxes. That’s obviously a negative.
So what’s the positive? Well, “more in-state slots” means that a slightly higher percentage of the Top 12.5% will be offered admission to a more popular UC campus, instead of only being offered admission to a less popular UC campus. For the Bottom 87.5%, this is a joke, not a “positive”.
So here’s a summary of your ballot measure: higher taxes on the Bottom 87.5%, so that the children of the Top 12.5% have slightly improved odds of getting a UC experience in (say) Westwood, Santa Barbara, or La Jolla, as opposed to (say) Riverside or Merced. That’s the deal you want.
You’ve stated before that you would accept the results of a statewide vote. OK then, I can already tell you what the results of a statewide vote would be. The only way this would pass statewide is if the Bottom 87.5% of voters were laughing too hard to fill out the ballot.
You keep mentioning the profile is misleading. The UC website specifically states those ranges aren’t an indicator of acceptance. They are merely ranges of who was accepted. They are not cutoffs and if you fall within the range you should not be expected to get in.
@Corbett the OP’s daughter is in the UC system, they just aren’t happy about the particular UC they’re in…and there is a HUGE difference between UCB and UCM, so you can’t equate all the universities in the UC system.
I get that. But I also get that there is little or nothing that the UCs can do to improve access to the most popular campuses. In general, those campuses are largely or completely built out, and the surrounding real estate is very expensive, so major expansions aren’t feasible. And the number of OOS slots at those campuses is tiny compared to the in-state demand, so further caps on OOS enrollment won’t solve the problem either.
I get that. But I also get that the UC System is required to provide a slot to all qualified in-state residents – and for purposes of that commitment, all UC campuses are equated.
It might make sense for the UC System to consider measures to help equalize the campuses. For example, if there were steep tuition discounts at UCR or UCM, this would likely increase the appeal of those campuses.
And of course, the cost of housing is often even more than the cost of tuition. In general, the less popular schools have potential financial advantages here that they could leverage. UCM, for example, is in a low-cost housing market (by CA standards) and has plenty of room to build dorms. Maybe they can find a way to formally guarantee inexpensive student housing, on or near the campus, for four years. Let’s see Berkeley match that.
I’d recommend you read the book “Factfulness” as I suspect it would help you understand the absurdity of statements like what I’ve quoted. The UC schools are primarily for California students (source: NCES Navigator):
For all campuses, at least 3/4 of the undergraduate slots are in-state residents with 55% of the campuses having at least 4 out of 5 students from California. Likewise, a policy change has very little upside as the most extreme policy change–zero OOS/foreign students–would only affect ~40000 people all four years or about 6/students/year ((40000 / 4) / 1600) per public high school in California (best I could find: ~1600 public high schools in California). If you include private schools (best estimate for a number of public and private high schools–~5000), that number drops to around 2 ((40000 / 4) / 5000) students. And, remember, this is the drastic absolutism of “UCs are California-only.” A more reasonable policy–“let’s cut it in half”–would drop the number to 13 and 4 respectively.
I think there is a perception that the UCs are overrun by OOS students, which is simply not the case. Yes, Berkeley and UCLA have higher percentages than some people would like, but overall the rate is significantly smaller than the rate at other major State flagship universities. That and there is now a law capping OOS enrollment at 18% or if a higher rate, the rate they had in 2017.
Based on the new law these 2017 numbers therefore (the four that are over 18%) are the new caps.
With the exception of Berkeley, most of these campuses are right around the 18% the state would like them to target or just above. This is not exactly being OVERRUN with OOS students. And even Berkeley has a low OOS percentage compared to other major flagship state schools. The University of Michigan has 43% OOS enrollment, Georgia Tech has 44% OOS enrollment, University of Virginia 30% OOS, U North Carolina is also capped at 18%. These schools are also in the US News Top Ten Public Universities list. Contrary to popular belief, the UCs are mostly enrolling California students – there are just an amazing number of top California students.