<p>
[quote]
The Master plan states that the UC's mission is to enroll the top 1/8 (12.5%) or California's high school graduates.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm pretty sure they are now supposed to "select from" the top 12.5% (although I thought it was changed to 10- perhaps it did not pass) of California high school graduates.</p>
<p>Personally I think the focus should really be on secondary education (high school). The Regents have done an excellent job and any change in policy should be dictated as a result of a documented objective problem, not perceived future hype. Stability is the key, stable tuition, stable university funding, and stable undergraduate enrolment. And by stable I mean relative to population. Sure it would be nice to see tuition decrease by 5-10 percent next year, but if it's only a short-term incentive package - forget it. That said...</p>
<p>"33% of 4th graders and 44% of 8th graders in California scored below the basic level of math that is expected in their grade (national average is 24% and 33%, respectively)" (2003)</p>
<p>"In California, three out of 10 students do not graduate from high-school" (2003)</p>
<p>"In 200102, the graduation rate was 69.6 percent. This rate implies that 30.4 percent of students in the ninth-grade class four years earlier either dropped out, were held back, or for other reasons did not graduate from high-school."</p>
<p>"The graduation rate has stayed fairly consistent. In 199293, the rate was 67.9 percent."</p>
<p>"Perhaps most worrisome, though, was the finding that GED-certified persons were indistinguishable from high-school dropouts in their performance in the labor market. According to Cameron and Heckman, both dropouts and exam-certified persons had comparably poor wages, earnings, hours of work, unemployment experiences, and job tenure."</p>
<p>If we want to keep big business in California the solution is to 1) produce students who are competitive on the world scale and 2) make a high school degree worth more. So far no candidate has sufficiently addressed the problem (to me at least) with numbers, performance metrics, or studies.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.edsource.org/first_to_worst.cfm%5B/url%5D">http://www.edsource.org/first_to_worst.cfm</a></p>
<p>Very good post, also I think we should push kids into school earlier (Proposition 82 would have created a $2.4 billion pre-school expansion program, but failed abominably, I voted for it).</p>
<p>In Response to Strykur</p>
<p>I think if we should push kids into school earlier we should just give people the option of enrolling their kids into kindergarden a year earlier. I think the pre-school idea is way too communitarianistic for me... It reminded me of Brave New World. Eventually parents won't be responsibile for their kids from the day they're born.</p>
<p>ClapYourFeet, that is not the point of the preschool program at all. The point is NOT to get them to go to school a year earlier. The point is to allow kids to interact with other children and learn some basic skillls BEFORE they get to Kindergarten. With the current system, the poor students are just thrown into the education system a full year behind all the other kids who could afford pre-school and they fall behind in classes from the time they start and they never get a chance to catch up with their peers. The idea behind the proposition was not to get kids to the K-12 system earlier but to get kids into the K-12 system more prepared.</p>
<p>Also, what is so especiallly "communitarianistic" about this? Before we had a public K-12 education system, there were people like you who said that that was too "communitarianistic." You dont think the K-12 system is too "communitarianistic," do you? People like you also thought that the idea of having public universities funded partly through taxes was too "communitarianistic"? But obviously you dont think that because you are attending a public university. And the list goes on about the things that people thought were too "communitarianistic" but today we see them as rights and not priveleges. Social Security and Medicare for the old and handicapped, the 5-day work week (as opposed to 7 days a week), child labor restrictions, and the right for women to vote were all, not too long ago, thought of as too "communitarianistic," but i doubt you would think that way today, right? </p>
<p>We already have a public K-12 sytem, so why not add a pre-school program so that ALL kids come to school prepared so theat they dont fall behind and so that 30% dont drop out of high school?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Eventually parents won't be responsibile for their kids from the day they're born.
[/quote]
It was going to be voluntary.</p>
<p>Why are you attacking me?
Do you even understand communitarianism?</p>
<p>From Wikipedia-
"Communitarianism as a group of related but distinct philosophies began in the late 20th century, opposing classical liberalism, capitalism and socialism while advocating phenomena such as civil society. Not necessarily hostile to social liberalism, communitarianism rather has a different emphasis, shifting the focus of interest toward communities and societies and away from the individual."</p>
<p>The Institute for Communitarian Policy Studies Chairman
"Communitarians believe with Americas Founding Fathers that it is possible to build the good society based upon the core values of the American people as defined by the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. The values that define the American community include the belief that the society should provide its citizens with equality of opportunity, material well being, and the opportunity for individual self-fulfillment, and that it should operate on the principles of fairness, justice and compassion."</p>
<p>...
The reality is that public education IS part of the communitarian ideal.
Am I comepletely against pre-school? NO.
Does it's need mirror Huxley's utopia/dystopia? YES.</p>
<p>It can be argued that industrialization, the cost of living, and a host of other things have caused the structure of the traditional household to fragment, and because of this kids need "Pre"school to "help them learn some basic skillls". Middle and Lower class parents cannot take care of their children properly because of the need to have two incomes in order to "survive" let alone pay for pre-school for their kids and single parents don't even have the time to raise kids and work at the same time. It is the government's job to make up for this socio-economic disadvantage and give people the option of pre-school so they could learn basic skills to help them become benificial member of society. Because remember...
1. Getting a High School Diploma
2. Getting a College Degree
3. Getting a well paying career
are all steps to becoming a fitter, happier, and more productive member of the community. Am I being sarcastic?</p>
<p>Maybe I'm rambling on but let me try and put things in perspective.</p>
<p>A. People believe that if you go into pre-school you will come into K-12 prepared and are much more likely to graduate from high school.</p>
<p>This is not neccesarily true. Just because there is positive correlation between the two does not mean there is causation. The reason kids who enroll in pre-school are more likely to graduate from high school is not because of the skills they learn in pre-school, but rather the fact that they are enrolled in pre-school in the first place is a reflection of their home environment. By enrolling their kids in pre-school the families of these children show that either 1-They are rich or 2-They care enough about their kids education that they want them to succeed from day one. Either way the children have a higher chance of BEING IN AN ENVIRONMENT THAT VALUES EDUCATION and therefore have more support and help to get them through high school. </p>
<p>B. Should Education be valued by everyone?</p>
<p>The answer is NO. How many unskilled workers could we go without? Why can't an individual just want to be a housewife or a stay-at-home dad? Who says its wrong to be a construction worker, farmer, or a waiter? Some people just don't have the capacity to go through school and it's nobodies fault. </p>
<p>C. Public Pre-school can't hurt, can it?</p>
<p>As somebody who does not see the educational value of pre-school I believe that this new institution will serve as a free babysitter for all. I'm not big on fiscal spending and I believe that the money can be better spent on helping those who need two incomes find more time and resources to raise their own kids. The problems with society goes much deeper than pre-school, lets start there.</p>
<p>"B. Should Education be valued by everyone?</p>
<p>The answer is NO. How many unskilled workers could we go without? Why can't an individual just want to be a housewife or a stay-at-home dad? Who says its wrong to be a construction worker, farmer, or a waiter? Some people just don't have the capacity to go through school and it's nobodies fault."</p>
<p>I have to disagree with this statement. </p>
<p>Sure a college degree is not for everyone for various reasons, whether construction workers, farmers, ect... don't have the capacity is debatable (especially as fields in construction and agriculture have become increasingly complex). But the most basic levels of education are essential. For example, we all acknowledge that every person, regardless of the value they put on education, should be literate, should be able to do basic math (algebra), should understand their role as citizens and voters, should know basic history of at least their state if not more.</p>
<p>A robust high school system can give us a better workforce and more competitive set of college-ready HS graduates. </p>
<p>I think we have moved past the days of specialty skilled labor (blacksmiths, shipbuilders, family farmers, plumbers) and gradually starting to move away from height of unskilled labor (assembly lines, cashiers, simple construction) in into a new market that requires semi-skilled workers. People who, through vocational education or a robust HS system, can operate computer equipment with reasonable proficiency, can repair and diagnose mechanical problems in complex machinery, can not only read but interpret and possibly even modify blueprints and work orders to fit the realities on the ground and provide worthwhile feedback. </p>
<p>We can move this society forward without granting a greater percentage of degrees (national average stats show that about 35 percent of all citizens hold at least a bachelors degree) or making college a requirement for every field in the new job market.</p>
<p>
[quote]
We can move this society forward without granting a greater percentage of degrees (national average stats show that about 35 percent of all citizens hold at least a bachelors degree) or making college a requirement for every field in the new job market.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Do you mean "can't?" If so, I wholeheartedly disagree. Why not just have more vocational programs or associate degree programs instead? A bachelors degree isn't necessary as a requirement in every new field, and I think we shouldn't encourage bachelor degree inflation.</p>
<p>"Do you mean 'can't?'"</p>
<h2>No.</h2>
<p>Hot from the news wire....</p>
<p>GOVERNOR SIGNS 2006-07 STATE BUDGET, PROVIDING UC FUNDING FOR STUDENT ENROLLMENT GROWTH WITHOUT FEE INCREASES </p>
<p>In regards to the money that will lead to an increase in enrollment:
[quote]
I want to thank the governor and the Legislature for the support they have given to the students, faculty and staff of the University of California, said UC President Robert C. Dynes. This budget supports our mission as a public institution providing students with access to a high-quality education, researching the important questions facing our society, and providing public service that improves the lives and health of people in communities across California.
[/quote]
That's for all the Sakkys on CC.
[quote]
*** Enrollment growth**: Funding for enrollment **growth of 2.5 percent in 2006-07, at a level of $9,900 per student.** This increase allows UC to continue meeting its **obligations under the Master Plan for Higher Education to offer a place to all eligible California undergraduate applicants** and to continue increasing graduate enrollments, including in the health sciences.
[/quote]
Hm, an obligation to offer a place to all eligible CA undergraduate applicants? What the hell is that! That will make the UCs less prestigious!!! HOW COULD THEY DO THIS!? WAH WAH WAH.</p>
<p>I really wish more people in this forum knew why a public institution is so very different from a private institution and why the differences do not entail superiority for private institutions.</p>
<p>Go green :)</p>
<p>Private universities provide plenty of students access to quality education. Sakky wants to provide students access to a high quality education, he just doesn't think every Californian needs to go to Berkeley. Do you understand his key arguments? Perhaps you prefer demonizing and misrepresenting him? </p>
<p>
[quote]
Hm, an obligation to offer a place to all eligible CA undergraduate applicants?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And what about all the uneligible? And what of the definition of eligible? That could easily be changed.</p>
<p>Providing "plenty of students access to quality education" is not intrinsic to, or even a necessary goal of, a private institution; however, the opposite is true of a public institution (like the UC system). It's fundamental and must be understood.</p>
<p>If they define themselves as such, then yes, but they don't have to do that. Take a look at a few other countries such as Japan and France. Until recently, private schools were jokes and the publics were very exclusive. And I would say plenty of UC programs, especially graduate and professional programs, do great jobs at excluding those it does not want, and really, with about 3/4 of the undergraduate applicants rejected at Berkeley and UCLA (higher percentages in some colleges within each and about 70% or so of in-state applicants overall), you really have to wonder how inclusive the system is currently.</p>
<p>That's why I said "(like the UC system)." Some of Sakky's suggestions are antithetical to the UC system. Your argument about the exclusivity of UCLA and Cal would hold water if they were not parts of a larger system.</p>
<p>Also, the part about enrollment growth actually included a mention of the graduate programs: "...and to continue increasing graduate enrollments, including in the health sciences."</p>
<p>I don't think sakky minds many students having access to certain parts of the UC system. I don't either. I also don't see how "additional graduate enrollments," which will probably be fairly minimal, changes much about how exclusive many UC (especially Berkeley and UCLA) graduate and professional programs are and will be. And if they had infinite resources? They would be exclusive like Harvard law is exclusive. Large does not mean inclusive necessarily.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I also don't see how "additional graduate enrollments," which will probably be fairly minimal, changes much about how exclusive many UC (especially Berkeley and UCLA) graduate and professional programs are and will be.
[/quote]
The point is that the emphasis is placed on increasing enrollment, NEVER NEVER NEVER decreasing it. Increasing enrollment is far more important than prestige, as long as the quality of education is still high (and this CAN BE DONE in addition to increasing enrollment--the two are not mutually exclusive). </p>
<p>I'm not as concerned with the graduate programs; I think their purposes are a bit different than the undergraduate programs.</p>
<p>Well, the governon is willing to buy out the fee increases because it is election year... :)</p>
<p>
[quote]
In regards to the money that will lead to an increase in enrollment:</p>
<p>Quote:
I want to thank the governor and the Legislature for the support they have given to the students, faculty and staff of the University of California, said UC President Robert C. Dynes. This budget supports our mission as a public institution providing students with access to a high-quality education, researching the important questions facing our society, and providing public service that improves the lives and health of people in communities across California.</p>
<p>That's for all the Sakkys on CC.</p>
<p>Quote:
* Enrollment growth: Funding for enrollment growth of 2.5 percent in 2006-07, at a level of $9,900 per student. This increase allows UC to continue meeting its obligations under the Master Plan for Higher Education to offer a place to all eligible California undergraduate applicants and to continue increasing graduate enrollments, including in the health sciences. </p>
<p>Hm, an obligation to offer a place to all eligible CA undergraduate applicants? What the hell is that! That will make the UCs less prestigious!!! HOW COULD THEY DO THIS!? WAH WAH WAH.</p>
<p>I really wish more people in this forum knew why a public institution is so very different from a private institution and why the differences do not entail superiority for private institutions.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Interesting. There was a thread taking shots at me, and I didn't even know about it.</p>
<p>First off, I never said that private schools are necessarily superior to public schools. In fact, I have stated myself that often times they aren't. For example, Oxford and Cambridge are clearly the 2 best schools in the UK, and probably better than any school outside of the United States, yet Oxford and Cambridge are public. </p>
<p>Secondly, just because a school is public does not mean that it has to offer a place to every 'eligible' resident applicants (however you choose to define 'eligible'). For example, Oxford and Cambridge do not guarantee a place for all eligible British citizens. They use no formula to guarantee admission to anybody the way that the UC system does. British high school students have no formulaic way to calculate their 'index score' to see whether they have become "Oxbridge-eligible". They apply, and they might get in, they might not. </p>
<p>The notion of a Master Plan that guarantees admission to UC to all "eligible" applicants is something peculiar to the state of California. Certain other states run similar systems. But other states do not. Furthermore, many other countries certainly do not run their public university systems this way. The point is, you DON'T HAVE to run your public university admissions this way. It was a CHOICE that was made when California instituted the Master Plan. But you didn't need to implement the Master Plan. California CHOSE to implement the Master Plan. </p>
<p>Furthermore, UC administrators were part-and-parcel to the entire negotiation process of the Master Plan. In other words, they had a hand in creating the system. Hence, when UC administrators say that they must do something according to the Master Plan, what they are really saying is that they are only adhering to an agreement that they had a hand in creating. They didn't have to help to create the agreement. They chose to do it. Hence, I find the complaints that they are somehow 'forced' to do something because of the Master Plan somewhat disingenous. If UC is somehow constrained by the Master Plan, it is only because they chose to be constrained by that plan. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Your argument about the exclusivity of UCLA and Cal would hold water if they were not parts of a larger system.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But then only leads to the question of whether they really have to be part of the larger system. </p>
<p>That is not a flip comment. Take the Haas School of Business. As far as I know, Haas has not increased its undergraduate program enrollment figures substantially for a number of years now, and has no plans to do so in the near future. So does that mean that Haas is behaving in a manner 'antithetical to the UC system'? Last time I checked, the Haas undergrad program was a part of the UC system.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The point is that the emphasis is placed on increasing enrollment, NEVER NEVER NEVER decreasing it. Increasing enrollment is far more important than prestige, as long as the quality of education is still high (and this CAN BE DONE in addition to increasing enrollment--the two are not mutually exclusive).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't believe I ever said that decreasing enrollments was the only way to achieve the goals I want. What I really care about is quality. Decreasing enrollments is only one way to achieve this goal, but I don't think I have ever stated that it is the only way. Please point to the quote where I said that this was the only way to increase the quality of Berkeley.</p>
<p>In fact, let me say this. I have no problem with Berkeley increasing its enrollment by simply bringing in more high quality students. For example, if Berkeley could somehow convince all of those students who get admitted but turn it down to go to HYPSM to instead go to Berkeley, that would be great. In fact, that would achieve both of our purported goals. Berkeley would increase its enrollment (which is apparently what you want), and Berkeley would also have a higher quality student body (which is what I want). In fact, Berkeley would then be something like Oxbridge, for which the best British students eagerly turn down private schools. </p>
<p>The problem is that I don't think that winning more of the cross-admits is going to happen unless Berkeley changes itself. After all, if Berkeley were really so attractive to these students, then Berkeley would be winning the cross-admit battles with HYPSM right now. That isn't happening. I believe that one of the main reasons why Berkeley doesn't win those battles is that those other schools can offer greater resources per capita than Berkeley can. Reducing Berkeley's student body (principally by not admitting that 15% of students who aren't going to graduate anyway) is one reform that could be made. But I never said that it was the ONLY possible reform. All I'm saying is that if Berkeley wants to get better, then it needs to enact some reforms.</p>
<p>Now, if Berkeley isn't really interested in getting better, then fair enough, then Berkeley doesn't need to enact any reforms. Then Berkeley will always have to be content with losing the majority of the cross-admit battles with HYPSM at the undergrad level.</p>