<p>Last year’s ranking seemed like a pretty uncharacteristic drop for UCSC:</p>
<p>[University</a> of California - Accountability Report](<a href=“http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/accountability/index/11.4]University”>http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/accountability/index/11.4)</p>
<p>Does anyone know what caused that?</p>
<p>I’ll speak to the problem of “founding faculty” not being replaced at UCSC. California had a real estate slump and budget crisis in the early 1990s. Nowhere near as bad as this one of course. But in order to get past the budget problems there were very generous buyouts offered to a lot of tenured faculty – names, big stars – and also the sort of faculty that you depend on to show up at a curriculum meeting and think outside of the proverbial box. When new faculty were hired, it was done in smaller numbers, at entry level, etc. Some depts at UCSC were really hard hit.</p>
<p>There was a lot of talk of closing down two campuses (UCSC and Riverside) in the budget crisis about two years following the passage of Prop. 13, with the idea of selling the UCSC campus… the idea was that UCSC was “underpopulated” (something no one would argue now). So, a fair number of first year-students were admitted, “Berkeley redirects” who were promised that they could transfer to Berkeley if they proved themselves at UCSC. </p>
<p>I personally doubt that any campus will be closed down except for maybe Merced. I do think that class sizes will get pretty big for some time…</p>
<p>I still don’t understand how people think Merced could close. California’s current population of 36 million is expected to grow to 50-60 million by 2050. Merced is expected to eventually enroll 25,000 students so the UC system can abide by the California Master Plan of Higher Education which states that the UC system must serve the top 12.5% of high school grads.</p>
<p>So what do you propose we do if we close Merced? Cram those students into the existing UCs? Berkeley, UCLA, and UCSB have just about maxed out their current acerage and the UCs are crowded as it is. Should the Master Plan be edited to a smaller percentage, with more students being kicked to the Call State system?</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Yes, that’s exactly what I propose - give each Merced student his/her choice of enrolling at Riverside or Santa Cruz, and then hire those high rise demolition guys to blow the Merced campus into rubble, bury the rubble, plant some sagebrush over it, and walk away.</p>
<p>Has Merced’s enrollment topped 3000 yet? UCR and UCSC both have trouble filling their freshman classes each year. They could use the boost from the Merced transfers. But instead we are spending many millions keeping an entire new UC campus open to serve an enrollment smaller than my daughter’s high school.</p>
<p>Let’s face it. UC Merced is a school nobody wants to attend stuck out in the middle of nowhere - where no one wants to live. It’s a useless mistake that is acting as a ball and chain to the rest of the UC system. California’s future growth could much more readily and cheaply be addressed by controlled growth of existing campuses. Time to admit the mistake and correct it.</p>
<p>I think the sunk costs invested in Merced are too high to abandon it at this point anyway. And Davis started out in the middle of nowhere too and now has become a decently attractive college town. As students and professors move in, they’ll drive up property values, improve the schools in the area, more businesses will cater to students, etc. I think it just needs time. </p>
<p>Also, are UCSC and UCR really having trouble filling classes? Not doubting you, but I just haven’t seen it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is in fact what has happened the last 2 years. Many students who would have been accepted to UCD 3 yrs ago (easily), not to mention UCSB and Irvine, have been left with one acceptance: UCSC. Some of these are private high school graduates are good material but are not spectacular enough in the highly competitive e.c./community service/ leadership areas, nor are they representative of economic hardship. (Thus, no tips for the more sought-after campuses.)</p>
<p>They should close the one that actually has value and can pump money into the system. UCSD, sitting in tony La Jolla could make room for many a McMansion. Merced is worthless in the middle of nowhere with housing prices in the toilet. So is Riverside.</p>
<p>I think i’s a great idea, just move the profs and students to Merced, there’s lots of room to combine the 2 schools and tons of affordable housing and new dorms!</p>
<p>Problem solved, SD’s value pumps mega millions into the system.</p>
<p>They also have fabulous value in most of the other campuses starting with SB and moving right along to Irvine, Berkeley and LA. Simply, there’s no reason for these schools to take up all of this valuable real estate. They could build fabulous campuses in Bakersfield, Stockton and other podunk towns.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>For once I agree with barrons :)</p>
<p>Except that I would put UCB and UCSF in a tippy-top tier above UCLA and UCSD.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>My thought, also, rc! Some things just take longer to get a head of steam behind them. Some long running, critically acclaimed TV shows almost didn’t make it out of their first season. It would be nuts to close UC Merced now–penny wise and pound foolish.</p>
<p>UC Merced has got to find something that will bring in kids–maybe instead of substance free dorms, they need substance dorms. (Just kidding–:)</p>
<p>hmom, lol about closing campuses that can pump the most money into the economy! 
Of course, it’s the presence of the UC campus that seems to push up local housing values. UCLA used to be in the middle of absolutely nowhere when it was started. UCSD, same thing, though it was a no-brainer that any coastal land would someday be worth gazillions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Easy, just raise the standards to the top ~10% of HS graduates statewide. Earning the minimum eligibility (3.0 average) in College Prep courses is just not that hard in most state high schools. But, more importantly, how many of these 3.0 students can really thrive at a major research University.</p>
<p>Take the savings and redirect to the Cal State and Community College system.</p>
<p>hmom: don’t forget all the Beach front property that could be turned into condos in Santa Barbara. :D</p>
<p>Maybe part of the equation that attracts top faculty to UCB, UCSD, UCLA and even UCSB is the location. Put them in Merced and many faculty would prefer to stay in Madison or Ann Arbor. Top faculty and students have choices. Lots of places wnat them. If you just want a diploma mill, fine. You already have several up and running in the Cal State system.</p>
<p>Understand hmom’s proposal was tounge-in-cheek, but paying to relocate research facilities on high value land to lower value land would take quite an investment…I don’t think the land values would support all relocation costs. </p>
<p>Besides, what provides better long-term economic value? Research universites or luxury condos?</p>
<p>barrons, location is important, but quality of life is a many-faceted thing. I have one friend who was offered the choice between a professorship at one of the UCs you mention and one of the midwest locations. The UC was turned down for the midwest because housing prices around the UC were totally unaffordable for a young professor, even 15-20 years ago. </p>
<p>Top tenured (or nearly so) academic talent is one thing, but it’s a buyer’s market for young and hungry assistant professors. Being able to help mold a young department, not to mention not having a lengthy commute, are all positives.</p>
<p>Easy, just raise the standards to the top ~10% of HS graduates statewide.</p>
<p>I’m actually not totally against that idea… I don’t know how much the minimum GPA would have to be raised in order to get it to 10%. Maybe a 3.2 GPA or so? I think the Merced campus was built on the belief that the 12.5% figure would exist indefinitely.</p>
<p>*Maybe part of the equation that attracts top faculty to UCB, UCSD, UCLA and even UCSB is the location. *</p>
<p>I think this does help, especially for top professors who are transferring from other schools. SlitheyTove is right, for young professors it’s really tough, and schools like UCSB are struggling to provide cheap housing for new faculty. However, for transferring professors who have a lot of money, I think they are easy targets. For example, UCSB got one of Dartmouth’s [top</a> professors](<a href=“http://thedartmouth.com/2005/09/27/news/gazzaniga/]top”>http://thedartmouth.com/2005/09/27/news/gazzaniga/) and I noticed that the article suggested that he “liked California”.</p>
<p>I knew she meant it partially in jest but people also need to recognize that faculty are both the heart of the college and among the most coveted of employees in that industry. You can’t force good people to go to Merced. They have choices even most students don’t enjoy.</p>
<p>It costs roughly $500,000 to support a junior faculty member before he starts earning his keep so to speak. They may be easier and cheaper to hire but they are also expensive in their own way.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Yeah, Davis started out that way in 1906. The money crisis is upon us NOW. Can we afford to pump money into Merced for another 50 or 100 years in the hope that it <em>might</em> become a “decently attractive college town?” Besides, Davis is only a few miles away from Sacramento - a good sized city and the state capital, which much reduces the “middle of nowhere” factor. UC Merced will never have big or even medium city next to it.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Once again, throwing good money after bad. When was having wasted a bunch of money a legitimate justification for wasting even more? Any economist, or even someone who has taken a high school Economics course, can tell that is pure folly.</p>
<p>The money crisis isn’t going to last 50 to 100 years though. Once the economy recovers I think all of the pieces will fall into place and the UC system will thrive as it is. Also, I don’t think being in the “middle of nowhere” is itself a big deal. There are plenty of great colleges with top notch faculty in the middle of nowhere.</p>
<p>Profs would have to bite the bullet and go where the jobs are.</p>
<p>I was joking, but think about it, ther is no need to have these campuses is these highly desirable places. They are absolute gold mines. </p>
<p>I was wondering what they could do with Merced if thy decided to close it and my conclusion was dire. Colleges are going out of business not starting up, the economy surrounding it is in terminal condition, housing is already overbuilt. There’s no market for Merced. </p>
<p>Yet most UCs sit on land worth billions for no good reason. While it’s of course unlikely it’s worth upping and moving them, a long term strategy for the UCs should be relocation of parts to lower cost places. Similar to the new model for start up businesses, just keep a few key people in major cities and send the rank and file to Peoria.</p>
<p>^ hmom, the state will receive a one time payment for theoretically selling the land. What higher value use do you propose for the land?</p>