<p>By the late 1950’s, it was recognized that having a UC in your area was a cash cow for a city. The land for the UCSD campus was primo city-owned land. UCSB’s campus was a Marine base. (interesting aside–the regents originally intended for UCSB to be a highest-caliber LAC).</p>
<p>On a more pragmatic basis, I can’t imagine that the residents of La Jolla or Westwood/Holmby Hills would meekly allow the campuses to be sold off for private development.</p>
UCSF doesn’t count because it’s not an undergrad school. </p>
<p>Keep in mind that lots of students turn UCB down in favor of UCLA (and vice versa) and some do, although to a lesser extent, for UCSD. Both of my kids did. Given what’s going on at the campuses why would you put UCB in a separate tier from UCLA and UCSD?</p>
Yes, UCSD for example, has certainly resulted in the La Jolla area around UCSD becoming one of the premier biotech areas in the country. It also played a part in the area becoming a top location for cell phone companies (i.e. Irwin Jacobs of Qualcomm and the UCSD Jacobs School of Engineering).</p>
<p>From the UCSD website -
</p>
<p>
The land for the UCSD campus was built at least partially on donated military land - Camp Matthews. Some of the old buildings are still there.
</p>
<p>And other posters are correct - a lot of the top students and faculty (not all but a lot) wouldn’t even consider going to Merced or Riverside (not that there’s anything wrong with doing so) because of the inland location.</p>
Just because some choose to drive a Mercedes E class over an S class doesn’t mean the E class qualifies as the flagship of Mercedes’s vehicle lineup.</p>
<p>Although undergrad student “quality” is par for these campuses, the faculty and academic programs are not equal in stature.</p>
<p>Decisions of 18 year-olds makes for an extremely weak argument. Some will choose against Bezerkely bcos of the urbane, grunge factor which has zero to do with academics, prestige or otherwise; and vice versa. Others may choose the SoCal schools do to weather, or SD due to the lack of sports, etc…</p>
<p>I’m not sure this business model would work so well with faculty (full disclosure: I’m married to one.) While faculty are in the educational “business” there are LOTS of them who don’t really care to have anything to do with the business side of that equation. They are dragged, not quite kicking and screaming, to serve on committees dealing with these issues. Some faculty just see there work as a kind of higher calling. </p>
<p>Take a look at the classic “college towns.” While they didn’t appear overnight, they tend to have the amenities that similar sized towns simply do not. Why? Because these amenities are used to attract both faculty (who want it for them and their families) and, to some extent, for the student body as well.</p>
<p>Larger cities already come with these amenities. It will take years and years for Merced to grow these. Until that happens, it will a moribund place to be.</p>
LOL! Imagine the outrage of closing public universities to build “very high end homes”…ones that “would equally contribute to the communities”, no less.</p>
That wasn’t exactly my point. My point was that there’s not a huge disparity in qualifications of the incoming student body between these institutions - perhaps compared to some other states that have a single ‘flagship’ that’s more distanced from the rest of the pack. There probably isn’t that huge of a disparity in the quality of the profs (however that might be measured) or things like research opportunities. But this is a silly argument (my fault for partaking) anyway because they each can manage to provide way more than an adequate challenge for the undergrads.</p>
<p>This surprises me. Goleta isn’t really Santa Barbara. Santa Barbara residents might be happy to get rid of the drunken student bacchanal on Halloween, but the campus is way the heck out of Dodge. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The LA westside area has actually gone through a very similar exercise in recent years. Maybe a mile or so from campus is an enormous tract of underdeveloped land owned by the federal government. It’s a VA facility, housing a heavily used hospital on one side of one of LA’s major thoroughfares. The other, larger side is a lovely parklike area with a scattering of oldish buildings. The UCLA baseball team’s Jackie Robinson Stadium is located here, as is a vintage theater that gets some use from UCLA Extension and some UCLA-sponsored performing arts events. </p>
<p>A few years back, some members of congress were looking for excess federal property to sell to private developers in order to trim the deficit. The Westwood VA property turned up, and looked ideal. It’s located in a super-high-property-values area, and much of the property was empty. </p>
<p>The idea was squashed flat in next to no time by the California congressional delegation. I remember in particular that Dianne Feinstein was very involved. The VA didn’t like the idea, for starters. The residents of the surrounding area were even more furious. The area has some of the heaviest vehicular traffic in the nation. Developing the property, even with high-end homes would be disasterous. I don’t remember a single city official being anything but opposed to the plan. </p>
<p>UCLA itself is used as a cultural resource by many local residents. Why drive downtown when you can go to Royce Hall for a concert series, or go see the Bruins play in Pauley Pavilion? There are extension courses (not all in Westwood, of course), some pretty terrific films and lectures, and lots of great running trails. Not to mention the hospital and medical center. Maybe there are some people who would welcome tearing it all down and developing it to be something else, but I really don’t see it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yup. Apparently, the city donated the first 400? 500? whatever acres, and the regents then checked with the feds to make sure they’d be able to get that military land before proceeding with the deal.</p>
<p>That’s based on the assumption operating a CSU is much cheaper than operating a UC. I’m not sure how true that actually is. Because otherwise, might as well close down the whole CSU system other than Cal Poly.</p>
