UC Santa Cruz vs. Univ. of Oregon

Parents Forum
21

<p>I’d pick Oregon. Probably because I went to high school in Oregon and that was our flagship university. </p>

<p>I moved to CA in the mid-70s, and UCSC, along with UCR, has always been in the academic low-rent end of the UCs the whole time I’ve lived here. It’s reputation as a hippie school served to make it less desirable for many students. I understand they have shed most of their uh…“alternative” ways and have long since started doing things like giving grades. But the reputation still lingers. Along with Riverside and now Merced, it’s still one of the UCs that California kids get “redirected” to when they qualify for UC admission but don’t have the stats for the top or middle tier UCs.</p>

22

<p>I wish I could give you numbers, but there indeed was a time in the great and glorious past when UCSC was at least one of the most selective UC’s. That may have been the first couple years of its existence when students were willing to live in trailers to be a part of an experiment in non-graded learning. Here’s to the pursuit of truth in the company of friends. ;)</p>

23

<p>Back when I was applying to college in the early 70’s, UCSC was brand spankin’ new and was the most selective campus of the UC’s. At that time, when you applied to UC you had to rank the campuses 1-9, and your application got sent to your first choice first, then down the line. I had a hard time choosing between UCSC and Cal but chose UCSC as my first choice because a colleague of my father’s at Cal told me to list the more selective campus first, and if I changed my mind later and wanted to go to Cal he could “get me in” through the College of Chemistry (extremely ironic, considering how much Chemistry and I ended up hating each other). I got into UCSC and visited but found it… too green. Not in the environmental sense, in the too many trees sense. And Berkeley was too big and too urban, so I found a nice happy medium. But I had a friend who was so furious with me for turning down UCSC. She had desperately wanted to go there but was “forced” to settle for Cal instead!</p>

<p>UCSC very quickly lost its gloss when students applying to graduate schools found that not having grades put them at a serious disadvantage. So that’s why those of us from the late 60’s - early 70’s remember it as highly selective, while it wasn’t so much by the mid-70’s.</p>

<p>I too get the sense that UO’s star is rising, but UCSC is becoming more selective as well, just by virtue of population pressure. My nephew is graduating from UO this year and is finding it hard to job-hunt in Calif., in part because he’s way up there in Oregon. So I tend to agree - decide where you think you’ll be living after college and choose accordingly.</p>

24

<p>UCSC is known as a stoner school, not Oregon…that’s kind of ironic isn’t it:)</p>

<p>I don’t know where you’re getting “UCSC was the most selective campus of the UC’s”. that’s just wrong, it was never in the same league as Cal or UCLA, never. </p>

<p>the top students, faculty, and facilities in the UC system didn’t magically shift to Santa Cruz for a few years in the 70’s…the few people above who went to UCSC and think that it was the best UC school back then are wrong. it’s laughable to even argue it…</p>

25

<br>

<br>

<p>I think this is what is causing the confusion here. People are confusing “most selective” with “most popular.” There may well have been a time early on when more applicants designated UCSC as their top choice, making it the most popular. But I’m pretty sure it never surpassed UC Berkeley and UCLA in the traditional selectivity measures such as acceptance rate and stats of the students who enrolled.</p>

<p>Heck, I can recall a couple of years back in the early 80s when I was at UC Davis that Davis was crowing about being the “most popular” UC campus as measured by campus designation on apps. But it was never academically the most selective.</p>

26

<p>I think you’re right, coureur. I grew up in CA and I recall a time when UCSC was the hot, hot, hot… in terms of popularity.</p>

27

<p>^^good clarification</p>

<p>popular for a few years with want-a-be hippie kids from the burbs who didn’t want to be graded is very different from the UC with the highest scoring undergrads, best professors, and best facilities.</p>

28

<br>

<br>

<p>As I recall, the Davis campus getting “hot” for a few years was attributed at the time to word getting out among CA high school students that it was a fun place to go to college because of its location half way between the bright lights of the Bay Area and the ski slopes of Tahoe.</p>

<p>Why it’s not still so hot today is not clear to me, since its location has not changed. I suppose it is because this was before the advent of the college rankings racket. Back then kids chose colleges for their own reasons and not because USNews said so.</p>

29

<p>

</p>

<p>UCSC’s old grading system is severely misunderstood. While yes, letter grading was once upon a time not even offered, let alone required, and UCSC operated on a “pass/no pass” basis, it also had something known as a “narrative evaluation” system. These narrative evaluations thoroughly detailed out what a student learned throughout the course of the quarter as well as how well they did with the material. When you only have a pass/no pass system, these evaluations are incredibly important to ensure that they will be glowing of your abilities.</p>

<p>I am glad for the move to a letter grading system that UCSC did over a decade ago (and enforced for all entering students just under a decade ago). Sadly, this means that the narrative evaluations that are still required to be given as supplements to the letter grades are not nearly as detailed as they once were. But the letter grading system is much quicker to view than say a 30 page transcript of narrative evaluations.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>If “rankings” and “prestige” are going to be brought into the argument, at least use the correct numbers. According to USNews, UCSC is ranked 71. UO is ranked 115. That’s a difference of 44 places and not a difference of 9-18 places as the above quote suggests.</p>

<p>All that said, the student should go to the campus that:

  1. Is most financially sound.
  2. Has the program the student is most interested in as well as a range of other subjects the student might also pursue.
  3. “Clicks,” so to speak, with the student.</p>

<p>My personal, humble opinion is that prestige, rankings, and stereotypes should not play as large a factor as they seem to in many college decisions.</p>

30

<p>I didn’t know anything about either school back in the dinosaur days, so no comment there…
If the kid is interested in biology at all, Oregon has great new toys in the department.</p>

31

<p>my employer read all of my narrative evaluations before offering me my job. Gave him a much more clear impression of me as an employee. </p>

<p>I do think the selectivity of UCSC in the early days was likely a result of the fact that they truly didn’t have enough room for too many students; sort of a supply demand thing. Students literally lived and attended classes in trailers and though I don’t know exactly the numbers of students in that first class of 67 you can bet it was the smallest UC class in its day. By the time I was a student there in the fall of 1980 we had only between 3 and 4 K undergrads.</p>

32

<p>@Kendra, The figures I quoted were from the 2009 edition of US News & World Report, admittedly now a bit out of date. </p>

<p>As for those who doubt that UCSC was once the most "highly selective school in the UC system, I refer you to the following article from 1969. I remember reading it that year, so it wasn’t too hard to find in the Harper’s Magazine archives:
July 1969
The easy chair/Article
A different kind of campus:
The experiment at Santa Cruz
By John Fischer</p>

<p>By “most selective,” I mean the most difficult to get into. It had the lowest acceptance rate in 1968-69 certainly, simply because so many people were interested in what the UC system was trying to accomplish there: create a public university based on the Oxford/Cambridge University model in England. That model was abandoned fairly soon, because the professors at UCSC found the tutorial model unrealistic. But I did take advantage of it; I believe about a third of all my coursework there consisted of tutorials (independent studies).</p>

<p>I feel like a sort of human time capsule, now.</p>

33

<p>Thank you, CalAlum.</p>

34

<p>Both of these schools were “safeties” for my daughter (graduated HS in 08). Oregon was her ultimate safety because she was guaranteed admission based on her stats; she later learned that she got enough merit aid to make COA competitive with UCSC.</p>

<p>She’s now a happy sophomore at a Big Ten school.</p>

35

<p>both U of O and UCSC have strong biology programs- but I would agree that Oregons programs are not endangered to the extent they are in CA.</p>

<p>Banana slugs are cool- but don’t ducks eat them?</p>

36

<p>I have read that some CA students are seriously considering OR public u’s because they are not confident they’ll be able to finish their degrees in 4 years due to cut-backs in CA of classes, as well as overcrowding. UO does not extend WUE rates to CA students (I understand it’s a reciprocation issue with the UC system), but the other OR publics do. Some CA families are figuring 4 years at 150% of OR instate tuition is going to save them money over paying 5 years (or more) of CA instate tuition. I haven’t run the numbers, but I can imagine that might be the case. (Although I don’t know how it would work out with UO since CA students would be paying regular OOS tuition there.)</p>

37

<p>CalAlum: Are you referring to me? The handle is Kender, not Kendra, if so. I’m guessing you’ve never played Dungeons and Dragons or read any of the Dragonlance books ;)? I tease only in good, light-hearted fun <3</p>

<p>And I was merely correcting your information as such things should always be accurate to current numbers if it is going to be used as a point of reference (or should have an indication that potentially out of date statistics are being used). I did not mean to offend. My apologies if you took it as such.</p>

<p>USNews rankings are as finicky a beast as college admissions. It’s not really an accurate means to compare schools since many are constantly being shuffled about. UCSC is a great example of how odd the placement can be. If you want to be technical, UCSC was a 70s (79<em>) ranking in the 2008 listing before moving to a 90s (96</em>) ranking in the 2009 listing. Moving 17 places back and then 25 places forward in the span of two years is just kooky since not that much has changed on campus except more fees.</p>

<p>It’s even more than possible, when you think about it, for a school to keep the same score as a previous year and to drop in rankings or to rise in rankings! Crazy! Or the fact that there is usually very little difference between scores compared to differences between rankings. For example, UCSC scores a 46 this year and UO scores a 37. That’s only a difference of 9. Yet it’s worth 44 places on USNews list of rankings. It’s such a silly system.</p>

<p>*NOTE: I am going from memory on the precise rankings from previous years. Please correct if inaccurate.</p>

<p>emeraldkity4: I don’t think a duck would very much like UCSC’s campus, truth be told XD. We have “too many trees” that are far too close together for the typical duck’s liking I would imagine. The things that eat the banana slugs, to my knowledge, are California giant salamanders, garter snakes, shrews, raccoons, and, supposedly, humans (in emergencies ;)). The shirts that say “no known predator” are a lie!</p>

<p>But I digress…</p>

<p>'rentof2: A friend of mine was accepted for the Spring 2010 quarter at Southern Oregon University and was lucky enough to not only receive a special scholarship based on her major, but also received a scholarship that granted her in-state tuition. Her reason for going was little about the costs of California schools and more about the chance to pursue a major she wanted near a great opportunity in correlation with her major (Ashland Shakespeare Festival). However, she’s also a community college transfer, though, so her costs are already severely reduced just from the savings of finishing her GE classes there.</p>

<p>Doing a rough add up of the costs, it seems as if it’s roughly $10k per year in difference between UCSC and UO. I wonder if the student is eligible for Cal Grant or Blue&Gold? To me, that would make the biggest difference in decisions since neither can be taken out of state (or the latter even out of the UC system). And even at full pay for a UC, five years at a UC is going to cost (based on current numbers) less than four years at UO. Again, correct if I’m mistaken. These were just rough numbers I glanced at and quickly added.</p>

<p>And maybe it’s because I’m taking upper-division classes, but the bulk of my classes average around 30 students and I have no trouble getting into them. I do have to plan very carefully and take classes that I have no wiggle room with (such as things like senior seminars and prereqs to senior seminars) that I know will only be offered once a year as soon as I can, but, for the most part, I just need to be flexible in what I’m willing to take in the classes I have some wiggle room with.</p>

<p>But who knows what the next four years will bring. The whole UC and CSU system might be completely destitute by then for all anyone knows.</p>

<p>I wonder if maybe the student wants a school that has heavy sports? If so, I’d definitely vote UO. UCSC is never going to have a heavy sports presence (or so I hope). And to some, that is a deal breaker. This, of course, is assuming the extra cost would not be a heavy burden to the family and/or the student is for sure not eligible for the financial assistance of Cal Grant or Blue&Gold.</p>

<p>And hey, with UO, one gets Donald Duck as one’s mascot essentially! I sound sarcastic, but I’m serious when I say this would be a cool thing :D</p>

38

<p>I just made this exact choice. I’m also from Marin, like the OP, and with the same academic interests as the student in question so either “the kid” is me, or I have a collegiate twin somewhere around here…weird.</p>

<p>I was also accepted into somewhat more “prestigious” schools than these two (UCSB, UCSD, Lewis & Clark) but due to location, finances and personal preference, my choices ultimately boiled down to these two. </p>

<p>What really attracted me to Oregon was the beautiful campus, the FIGs (freshman interest groups), and the fact that U of O had more of a “college feel” to it than Santa Cruz. Additionally, the school is more well-rounded in terms of academic programs than UCSC, which is very strong in science, but weaker in humanities. People were mentioning the successful sports teams, but that was never a big consideration for me.</p>

<p>But I ended up choosing Santa Cruz. I loved the residential college system, which are the ten smaller colleges within the UC meant to help foster a sense of a smaller community. It’s also closer to home, which was important to me, and with much better weather. The biggest factor, however, was that it was <em>significantly</em> cheaper than Oregon, for what I believe, is a fairly comparable education quality. The UCs also have great education abroad programs (UC EAP) and a UC in DC program for internships and education in DC. </p>

<p>In the end, Oregon’s beauty and sports couldn’t compare to the opportunities offered by the UCs, as well as Santa Cruz’s weather and location. For me, Santa Cruz was simply a better fit, and much more affordable an education for my family. Either school - and any school, for that matter - will end up being what a student makes of it.</p>

39

<p>Not to get off topic here, but Calalum, you are totally correct. In the late sixties US News rankings didn’t exist, and we students didn’t think in terms of rankings so it would be silly to assert that UC Berkeley has always been on top. </p>

<p>As it happens, UCSC had higher SAT scores than UC Berkeley until the early 70’s. Why? Because it was inovative, a new facility with residential colleges and had no grades. It was the proverbial “city on the hill.” Berkely in contrast in the late 60’s was a mess. </p>

<p>My H came to Berkeley in 1980 as a professor and there were still people in his department who didn’t talk to other people because of what happened in the 60’s. Our first years as a “faculty couple” was a nightmare of choosing factions.</p>

<p>UCSC attracted incredible students in the late 60’s. When my H wa evaluating graduate student applications when he first came, UCSC students were amazing. Far better than the UCB students.</p>