<p>you guys are all talking about academic caliber and prestige and such, but what the hell kind of a mascot is a tree? it's rather sad.</p>
<p>Just remember the main goal of the UC is to serve the top California students.</p>
<p>lol@ pea_sea,</p>
<p>a tree can outlive you ;)</p>
<p>Perhaps it is as hard to get into Berkeley out of state as the most selectives schools in the country, and if this is so, many of those that got in probably got into schools such as the Ivies, MIT, Cal Tech, Stanford, etc, seeing that these schools have higher yield rates.</p>
<p>Obviously the Ivies and Stanford are more selective than Berkeley. That doesn't mean they're better schools, they just have less people.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Just remember the main goal of the UC is to serve the top California students.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Maybe true of the UC undergrad program. Much less true of the UC graduate programs, especially the PhD programs. Take a PhD program at Berkeley, especially a technical PhD program. Californians in that program will usually be in the distinct minority. Th majority of the students will usually be either out-of-state, or internationals. </p>
<p>So think about what that means. I think we can all agree that the 'crown jewels' of the UC system are the UC doctoral programs. Yet the majority of UC doctoral students, especially at Berkeley, are not Californians. So basically, non-Californians are getting the best of what UC has to offer.</p>
<p>I said, "Perhaps it is as hard to get into Berkeley out of state as the most selectives schools in the country, and if this is so, many of those that got in probably got into schools such as the Ivies, MIT, Cal Tech, Stanford, etc, seeing that these schools have higher yield rates." </p>
<p>I meant to say that, pretty much, just that the ones that got into the other schools (Ivies, MIT, CalTech, Stanford) tend to choose them, because they have a higher yield. This might explain the lower out of state yield, as might distance, prestige, equivalent or higher cost for perceived less prestige or resources, ect)</p>
<p>Blah blah blah. </p>
<p>Let's talk about Calso. It sucked.</p>
<p>In what way/ how did CalSO suck?</p>
<p>A minor nitpick at sakky's post:</p>
<p>The key distinction to make about UC's mission is that UC really has two goals: first, to increase educational opportunities afforded to California residents; and second, to increase economic opportunities in California.</p>
<p>UC accomplishes the first goal through offering world-class undergraduate and professional education. UC has nine campuses enrolling undergrads, a dozen professional--business, law, medical, nursing, optometry, pharmacy, vetrinary--schools, and through offering continuing education programs to the population at large.</p>
<p>UC accomplishes the second goal by (collectively) being by far the most productive research institution on the planet, bringing billions of dollars of research money into the California and nurturing new industries in the state.</p>
<p>That Berkeley does not appear to give state residents priority in Ph.D. program admissions to California residents is reflective of the second goal; Berkeley sees that it's better to have the brightest Ph.D. students working in its labs and producing research there than to give more opportunities to state residents. This is because being in a Ph.D. program has more to do with the research a student does than the advantage s/he is afforded in future employment prospects. (And it also doesn't hurt that California's weather is so nice that many graduate students elect to stay after graduating, bringing their intelligence and work ethic into California.)</p>
<p>In contrast, professional programs that are more about education than research do indeed give priority to California residents. For example, Berkeley's Boalt Hall (one of the country's elite law schools) and UCSF (arguably the best medical school in the world), both give California residents a boost in admissions for their first professional programs along with a large state tuition subsidy. This is because the professional schools' purpose is more in tune with UC's education goal. </p>
<p>This is where I think sakky's assertion that UC's best offerings are not advantaged for in-staters is a little misleading. Yes, Berkeley's Ph.D. programs are outstanding, but so are UCSF's, UCLA's, UCSD's, Irvine's, Davis's, Berkeley's M.D., D.D.S., Pharm.D., D.V.M., J.D., O.D., &c. programs, all (or at least most) of which should be included in UC's "crown jewels" and which advantage California residents.</p>
<p>Hmm. I notice that this has very little to do with the thread, so I'll make a point I made on another thread: The students who are capable of getting into Stanford (or, these days, hold a lottery ticket for getting into Stanford) on merit are likely to be the ones who will do just as well at Berkeley as at Stanford. (And for undergraduate school, the rivalry is probably more something along the lines of a fictional Harvard vs. Cornell rivalry as opposed to Harvard vs. Boston one).</p>
<p>Calso sucked because it was all lecture. No, there were a few fun parts. But then we had that 2 hour discussion about diversity. And my mattress was made of a thin strip of fabric lying atop a mangled yarn of iron coils that jarred into my spine and almost broke my hip. 'Twas excruciating.</p>
<p>Nope, I didn't like Calso very much at all.</p>
<p>But carry on with the debate. What was it about again?</p>
<p>
[quote]
...and second, to increase economic opportunities in California.
... UC accomplishes the second goal by (collectively) being by far the most productive research institution on the planet, bringing billions of dollars of research money into the California and nurturing new industries in the state.</p>
<p>That Berkeley does not appear to give state residents priority in Ph.D. program admissions to California residents is reflective of the second goal; Berkeley sees that it's better to have the brightest Ph.D. students working in its labs and producing research there than to give more opportunities to state residents. This is because being in a Ph.D. program has more to do with the research a student does than the advantage s/he is afforded in future employment prospects. (And it also doesn't hurt that California's weather is so nice that many graduate students elect to stay after graduating, bringing their intelligence and work ethic into California.)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Quentin, I' heard this argument before, and it suffers from a subtle, but fatal logical weakness. Can you see what it is? </p>
<p>Basically, the logical weakness is that if you truly believe in what you wrote above and that the purpose of state funding of UC PhD programs is to enhance the economic base of California, then there is no reason for those programs to exist at all. Instead, the state of California could have accomplished the exact same thing by not having UC PhD programs at all, and simply diverting all of the state funding necessary to create those programs to the PhD programs of in-state private schools like Stanford and Caltech. After all, UC research programs do not have a monopoly in aiding the economic base of California. The last time I checked, the research programs of Stanford and Caltech also greatly benefit the economic base of the state of California by also nurturing new industries in the state, attracting billions of dollars of outside research funding, and also attracting many of the best minds in the world who then choose to stay in the state and develop the local economy. Stanford, for example, was far more instrumental in the creation and development of Silicon Valley as an economic dynamo than was Berkeley. </p>
<p>Some of you might remark that it would be unconscionable for a government to fund a private institution. Oh really? Take Caltech as an example. Considering Caltech's tiny student body, it would not surprise me in the least if Caltech actually received a LARGER allotment of state funding, as measured on a per-capita, per-student basis, than do many of the individual UC's, especially the lesser UC's. So you could say that an individual Caltech student is, right now, getting more state funding, than an individual UC student at a lesser UC. The fact is, state research funding is allocated on a competitive basis, with little if any preference given to public universities. That money goes to whichever university the state happens to think will do the best research work, regardless of whether that university is public or private. California today allocates significant research funding to private schools like Stanford and Caltech. </p>
<p>Note, my point is NOT that I advocate that California shut down the UC research programs and divert all that money to private schools. Read carefully what I am saying. I am saying that if you believe the quoted text above, then you have no defense against somebody who would advocate such a diversion of funds. The UC's do not have a monopoly on the creation of economic activity through research activities. Private schools can and do accomplish the same thing. Look at the economic activity generated by such institutions as Harvard, MIT, Stanford, and Caltech and you cannot say with a straight face that private schools do not generate economic activity.</p>
<p>Sakky, in reality I think you and I are thinking along the same lines, only we are saying the same thing a little differently.</p>
<p>I'll clarify what I meant in my first post when I discussed UC increasing economic opportunity in California. The point I meant to make was that UC serves California's economic interest by attracting research money from outside of the state and by creating a strong intellectual community in California that is attractive to businesses and entrepreneurs.</p>
<p>My understanding is that you have two main points: first, private schools are just as good as, if not better than, public schools at encouraging investment/entrepreneurship in an area; and second, public money doesn't need to go to public schools because private schools are good at promoting economic growth.</p>
<p>I will address the second point first. I agree with you on your point here in that UC is not fundamentally more worthy of state research money than Stanford. </p>
<p>However, I think you may have misunderstood what me when I mentioned UC promoting economic growth in California. You say that some people could extend my argument to its absurd logical conclusion and say that UC should just give up on having Ph.D. programs and just use state money to fund research at Stanford and Caltech. The implication is that my line of reasoning for UC's purpose is that UC's purpose is to somehow keep state research money inside the state government (or at least an extension of it)--to "keep public money in public hands," if you will. </p>
<p>However, state research money is fairly limited--as far as I know, California doesn't spend very much on science, except for maybe some hydrological/seismological research, and recently the stem cell research thing. In reality, most research money comes from corporate partnerships and the federal government in the form of NSF/NIH/NASA/&c. research grants. In this area it's pretty clear that UC brings in a lot of money; I don't have exact figures but I'm fairly certain that UC attracts billions of dollars of federal and corporate funds into California. It is true that if UC's graduate schools didn't exist, Stanford and Caltech would probably be getting more money, but so would Chicago and Harvard--so by having UC be such a big receiver of research money, California's share of the research money pie is almost certainly larger than it would be without UC.</p>
<p>And now to your other point. It is indeed true that private schools are very good at developing new ideas and promoting economic growth. Indeed, as you pointed out Stanford has been very good about this. It has probably been more successful than any other university in the country in the past couple decades at this with its promotion of entrepreneurial spirit on campus. However, UC also definitely adds to the intellectual capacity of the state. </p>
<p>More important to the state economy than the billions of dollars of research funding (which in reality isn't that much if you consider the size of the state) UC brings in are the intellectual communities that UC builds. It's evident that advanced research tends to correlate with investment and entrepreneurship. (Some obvious examples of this are Silicon Valley developing in the Bay Area partly because of Stanford and to a lesser extent Berkeley; the aerospace industry being built up in southern California partly because of Caltech/JPL and to a lesser extent UCLA; the biotech centers being built up in the Bay Area and southern California partly because of Stanford/UCSF/Berkeley and UCSD/UCLA/Caltech; Boston's technology industry and MIT/Harvard; &c.). It's true that Stanford and Caltech are great research schools that have served in the past and will continue to serve in the future as such intellectual nodes, but it's also true that UC has contributed to bringing top talent into the state. </p>
<p>And to bring it all full circle: By bringing in top students from all over the country to study in the UC graudate schools, UC makes breakthroughs with help with getting more NSF/NIH/corporate grants. That California's weather is so good enocurages newly minted UC Ph.D.s to stay in state, which helps bring in investment and promote entrepreneurship. These effects would occur with any research school, but it's in the state's interest to create a state university system with many possible nodes for the above to occur at. </p>
<p>So I guess you could reduce my argument for UC's goal of promoting economic growth in California to the shotgun principle: California has two world-class private schools capable of absorbing massive research grants and encouraging intellectual development in Stanford and Caltech; by adding in another 10 big research centers in UC (at least four to five of which--Berkeley, UCSF, UCLA, UCSD and possibly UCSB--are world-class), California has a much better shot at getting research money (six huge grant receivers vs. two) and having at least one school at the epicenter of the next big thing.</p>
<p>Oh, and a really wimpy third point: By being such a research mecca, UC helps to dispel the stereotype that Californians are all plastic, appearance-obssessed parasites of society. That certainly creates economic opportunities in the state! </p>
<p>Wow, that was a really long post. Hopefully I won't ever again make as long a post as this.</p>
<p>
[quote]
However, state research money is fairly limited--as far as I know, California doesn't spend very much on science, except for maybe some hydrological/seismological research, and recently the stem cell research thing. In reality, most research money comes from corporate partnerships and the federal government in the form of NSF/NIH/NASA/&c. research grants. In this area it's pretty clear that UC brings in a lot of money; I don't have exact figures but I'm fairly certain that UC attracts billions of dollars of federal and corporate funds into California. It is true that if UC's graduate schools didn't exist, Stanford and Caltech would probably be getting more money, but so would Chicago and Harvard--so by having UC be such a big receiver of research money, California's share of the research money pie is almost certainly larger than it would be without UC.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But once again, your argument is susceptible to the notion that if you believe what you are saying, then you have no problem in the state of California taking its limited research dollars and just giving it to research departments at Stanford because doing so would also attract concurrent Federal and corporate research funding, which would benefit the state of California, because Stanford is located in California. What you are basically pointing to is a multiplier effect - a dollar of state research funding can attract several multiples of outside funding. However, there is no reason to believe that the multiplier effect is any larger at UC than it is at Stanford (or Caltech). </p>
<p>Again, keep in mind that not all state research funding goes to UC. Stanford and Caltech also get plenty of state research funding today. For example, take the California stem cell research funding initiative that was passed via Proposation 71. Stanford expects to receive a substantial portion of that state funding. Furthermore, like you said, this state funding is likely to attract multiples of outside funding. </p>
<p>"...Stanford and other California institutions could receive state funding that will exceed any federal funding for stem cell research. Already a leader in stem cell research, Stanford is likely to receive grants from the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, formed after the passage of Proposition 71 last November. The result, prominent scientists on campus said, is expected to bring about advances in medical therapies that will benefit both Stanford and the state. "</p>
<p>
[quote]
More important to the state economy than the billions of dollars of research funding (which in reality isn't that much if you consider the size of the state) UC brings in are the intellectual communities that UC builds. It's evident that advanced research tends to correlate with investment and entrepreneurship. (Some obvious examples of this are Silicon Valley developing in the Bay Area partly because of Stanford and to a lesser extent Berkeley; the aerospace industry being built up in southern California partly because of Caltech/JPL and to a lesser extent UCLA; the biotech centers being built up in the Bay Area and southern California partly because of Stanford/UCSF/Berkeley and UCSD/UCLA/Caltech; Boston's technology industry and MIT/Harvard; &c.). It's true that Stanford and Caltech are great research schools that have served in the past and will continue to serve in the future as such intellectual nodes, but it's also true that UC has contributed to bringing top talent into the state.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, but this presents another can of worms. For example, if you are relying on the ability of UC to develop academic communities, but you also concede that private schools are also highly successful in building academic communities. UC certainly doesn't have a monopoly when it comes to building academic communities in the state of California. </p>
<p>That then opens up another idea that I've heard voiced from other people that I can't find any logical weaknesses in. If we agree that Stanford and Caltech build academic communities that benefit the state of California, then why not give a state subsidy to any California resident who wants to study at Stanford or Caltech? Why should California students be subsidized only if they go to a public California school? Why not also private California schools? If I live in California, pay taxes to California, and then go to Stanford and join the academic community around Stanford, then why shouldn't I get a subsidy? After all, whether I go to UC or to Stanford, I'm still benefitting California economically. So from a public finance point of view, why should California prefer one over the other when both are equally beneficial to the state?</p>
<p>^ Sakky. Lets put it this way. If Lawrence Livermore Laboratory was thinking about moving to Antarctica, and it was under the joint ownership of both Berkeley and Stanfurd, Berkeley would put up the bigger fight to keep it in California than Stanfurd would. Both would have academic interests in it, but UC's would have a more vested interest in prioritizing the public interest, even if Berkeley got more private funding than Stanfurd did. </p>
<p>There is a difference in mission served. If Stanfurd wants more public money from the state of California, then they should consider a move to become public and call themselves UC Stanfurd. </p>
<p>Sakky, there is a reason why UCLA's economic forecasts of the housing market in Southern California is considered to be less biased than lets say Claremont McKenna's economic forecasts of the housing market. UCLA is trusted more because overall, their interest is to serve the California public and their interests. There is less of a certainty for this purpose to be served at a private university. Sure Claremont McKenna may accept public money to conduct a study, but their study will still be considered to be less objective then UCLA's would be. Thats just reality, no amount of semantics can change that.</p>
<p>
[quote]
As I said, I think it is because Berkeley is considered the universal Ivy back-up.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I would say that Berkeley is considered to be a backup to the upper tier Ivies like Harvard and Yale. But definitely not the middle tier and lower tier Ivies. </p>
<p>Lets not forget that Cornell and Brown are not close to Harvard. Just because Berkeley students would have chosen Harvard, does not mean they would have chosen Cornell and Brown just because they are ivies. </p>
<p>Depending on Ivy league status to make up for shortfalls isn't just misinformation, but its downright unpatriotic for the long term health of one of our few remaining comparative advantages, the US University system.</p>
<p>I personally chose Berkeley over UPenn and Cornell. And it had nothing to do with money.</p>
<p>My cousin chose Berkeley over Brown.</p>
<p>I apologize, I meant to say HYP, not Ivies.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If Lawrence Livermore Laboratory was thinking about moving to Antarctica, and it was under the joint ownership of both Berkeley and Stanfurd, Berkeley would put up the bigger fight to keep it in California than Stanfurd would. Both would have academic interests in it, but UC's would have a more vested interest in prioritizing the public interest, even if Berkeley got more private funding than Stanfurd did.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, in your hypothetical situation, I would argue that there must have been a reason for Lawrence Livermore to want to move to Antarctica, whether it be a good scientific reason, or a good financial reason, or whatever. However, what you are basically saying is that UC would fight to keep Livermore in California, even if it overrides whatever reason Livermore would have for moving. Hence, it is not really the 'public interest' that UC would be fighting for, but rather the parochial interests of the state of California, regardless of the merits of moving to Antarctica. So basically, UC would be putting the desires of the state of California before whatever scientific or financial goals that Livermore would have. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, but we have to make clear that that's what UC would do. So if Livermore wanted to move to Antarctica because it thought it could produce better research down there, UC wouldn't really care about that. All it would care about is keeping it in California. </p>
<p>
[quote]
There is a difference in mission served. If Stanfurd wants more public money from the state of California, then they should consider a move to become public and call themselves UC Stanfurd.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is not about what Stanford wants. I think we both know that Stanford is in FAR better financial health than UC is right now, so it's not like Stanford is begging for California money.</p>
<p>What this is about is what the state of California wants. The state of California supports UC because it wants to produce economic growth in the state. However, as I have stated, public schools are not the only schools that produce economic growth. Private schools like Stanford also produce significant economic growth. Hence, from a laissez-faire economists point of view, the state of California shouldn't care about how it gets its economic growth, just as long as it gets it somehow, and if both UC and Stanford produce similar increases in economic growth per state dollar, then there is no reason for the state to prefer UC over Stanford. </p>
<p>If the state doesn't want to give its money to Stanford, then that's fine. It's not like Stanford is hurting for the money. But the point is that if the state refuses to provide state money to Stanford, then the state may not be getting the greatest bang for its buck. As has been stated several times in this thread, Stanford has shown itself to be extremely efficient in producing economic growth for the state of California. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Sakky, there is a reason why UCLA's economic forecasts of the housing market in Southern California is considered to be less biased than lets say Claremont McKenna's economic forecasts of the housing market. UCLA is trusted more because overall, their interest is to serve the California public and their interests. There is less of a certainty for this purpose to be served at a private university. Sure Claremont McKenna may accept public money to conduct a study, but their study will still be considered to be less objective then UCLA's would be. Thats just reality, no amount of semantics can change that.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh really? Are you sure about that? First off, what you are implying is a gross violation of the compact that governs academic research, which by its nature is supposed to be unbiased. You are basically accusing all private schools of producing biased research, which is a tremendously incendiary claim to make. In particular, you may want to tell the 17 Nobel Prize winners at Stanford, or the 8 Nobel Prize winners at MIT, or the numerous laureates at Harvard that you don't trust their research because the fact that they are working at a private school must necessary mean that their work is biased. </p>
<p>However, let's suppose you're right. Then let me give you a hypothetical. Let's say I wanted a research study that compared California vs. some other state on some metric - economics, well-being, quality-of-life, etc.. In this case, if what you are saying is true, then I would be LESS inclined to believe the UCLA study than the Claremont study. Why? Because, like you said, UCLA's public status would mean that they would always be trying to make California look good, which means that I would not be able to trust what UCLA is telling me.</p>
<p>Sakky. UCLA's economic forecasts of the Southern California housing market says we are headed for a serious housing bubble. And yes, I as well as pretty much anyone in finance I know would trust UCLA's housing research over a private school in the same region, say Claremont McKenna's. Yes, public research in many cases is seen to have less reliance on private interests than private schools do. </p>
<p>Sure, theoretically this may be hard to prove, but if you are managing a 1 Billion dollar portfolio in Mortgage backed securities, you are going to assume that UCLA has the best academic research (although not necessarily the best research period) on the southern California housing market. Thats just a given.</p>