<p>Most of the rest of the states get most of their patents and innovative research from the publics. The UC System far exceeds Stanford in patents and licensing income from same.</p>
<p>Why on Earth would it be unfair that California community college graduates get transfer priority? They've proven their ability in collegiate-level coursework and saved the state's taxpayers a lot of money by doing their lower-division studies at a much lower-cost institution. It only makes sense that the state would encourage such a flow and, in fact, it's codified in the Master Plan for Higher Education.</p>
<p>The California community college system is the world's largest system of higher education and it didn't get there by accident. It's high-quality, affordable, accessible, cost-effective and egalitarian.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yeah, because as I have pointed out on other threads, CC transfer students, unfairly, get to skip over some (or in certain cases, all) weeders. A large (I think most) freshmen-admit flunkouts are due to the early weeders. Hence, the statistic that transfer student graduation rates are comparable to freshman admit graduate rates is a highly misleading statistic.</p>
<p>A fair statistic would be to compare the graduation rates of transfer students vs. those freshman admits who are at a comparable class level to the incoming transfers. Hence, you don't count those freshman admits who flunked out during those early weeders that the transfer students don't have to survive.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This also applies to the fact that for transfer and freshmen admit students graduate with about the same GPA, which means that transfer students don't do as well compared to freshmen admits in upper division courses, considering freshmen admits have to submit to the dangerously rough curves in the weeder courses.</p>
<p>
[quote]
what state schools are doing right now is inconsistent. State schools provide preference to resident undergrads but not to many graduate students, especially PhD students.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm not sure anyone is arguing with you on this--they have different policies, that's recognized. Yes, resident undergrads get preference, and resident grads get less preference or none at all. My point was that the public and the government--for whatever reasons--don't seem to mind that difference or "inconsistency" in policy.</p>
<p>State universities are also "inconsistent" in other ways dealing with their admissions policies across levels, schools, and majors. Whatever the minuses of allowing a lot of nonresidents in the music school, or requiring more calculus to get into the engineering school, or admitting a bunch of nonresidents to PhD programs (to name three examples), the State of Michigan isn't especially het up about it. And I'm guessing other states aren't particularly concerned about nonresidents in PhD programs at other flagships. If they grow concerned, I expect they'll do something about it.</p>
<p>I found an excellent research paper titled "Can Public Research Universities Compete?"</p>
<p>It talks to a lot of points discussed on these boards, concerning the differences between public and private institutions.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Public schools suck because they have to answer to the ridiculous mob known as the state Gov't. Private schools are better so I hope that UC-system goes "private" (not truly private but essentially just that).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's why "sucky" schools like UVa, Michigan and the UCs are begging homeless people to attend there and mighty private schools like (and I'm using made up names so as not to insult anyone) the University of Waco and Pasco Teacher's College turn hundreds of thousands of applicants away. Sheesh...</p>
<p>I left California ten years ago (don't tell anyone in Washington, but I still tend to think of myself as a lost Californian) and I have two degrees from the UC. The public college system in the US is a treasure that we ignore at our corporate peril. Could California pay for their colleges by changing the penalties for drug possession to house arrest instead of jail or prison? If I still lived there I'd be all over the opportunity to divert incarceration funds to education. Just a thought.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The UC System far exceeds Stanford in patents and licensing income from same.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Considering that the UC system as a whole consists of 10 full campuses (and one affiliated law school), compared to Stanford's single campus, and over nearly 13x the student body and over 7x the faculty size that Stanford has, the UC system better exceed Stanford in patents and licensing income. Frankly, it would be quite sad if the entire UC system didn't beat Stanford in licensing and patenting, given all of those numerical advantages. </p>
<p>Nevertheless, I think it is indisputable that Stanford has had at least as much, if not more, of a positive economic impact on the state of California as any single UC campus.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm not sure anyone is arguing with you on this--they have different policies, that's recognized. Yes, resident undergrads get preference, and resident grads get less preference or none at all. My point was that the public and the government--for whatever reasons--don't seem to mind that difference or "inconsistency" in policy.</p>
<p>State universities are also "inconsistent" in other ways dealing with their admissions policies across levels, schools, and majors. Whatever the minuses of allowing a lot of nonresidents in the music school, or requiring more calculus to get into the engineering school, or admitting a bunch of nonresidents to PhD programs (to name three examples), the State of Michigan isn't especially het up about it. And I'm guessing other states aren't particularly concerned about nonresidents in PhD programs at other flagships. If they grow concerned, I expect they'll do something about it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I would also point out that, 'coincidentally' (or perhaps not), it is the PhD programs that tend to be among the more prominent and prestigious of all of the programs at many of those public schools. For example, I think most people would agree that the most prominent programs at Berkeley, the ones that comprise the heart of Berkeley's prestige, are the PhD programs - the very same programs that 'coincidentally' provide no preference to state residents. Similarly, I think most people would agree that the University of Michigan PhD programs are, by and large, superior to the UM undergraduate program. The same could be said for schools like Wisconsin, Illinois, Texas, Minnesota, Texas, and numerous other public schools.</p>
<p>That is your opinion. I think the undergrad programs at those schools offer great educations and unlimited opportunities.</p>
<p>"Similarly, I think most people would agree that the University of Michigan PhD programs are, by and large, superior to the UM undergraduate program. The same could be said for schools like Wisconsin, Illinois, Texas, Minnesota, Texas, and numerous other public schools."</p>
<p>Sakky, can you describe the undergrad program at Michigan or Wisconsin? What courses will I be taking? Who will be teaching? Who my classmates will be? Opportunites inside and outside the classroom?</p>
<p>I would really love to hear you describe the Michigan undergrad program in math. </p>
<p>When did you go to either school?</p>
<p>dstark - be real here.</p>
<p>UM is considered very solid undergrad. But it is most definitely not considered at the top by most people not named Alexandre.</p>
<p>At the PhD level it is probably one of the top 5 schools in the nation.</p>
<p>So be real here. UM PhD > UM UG.</p>
<p>DSC, do you go to Michigan?</p>
<p>Sakky has his opinions. I want to know how familiar he actually is with the schools and the actual education at the schools he mentioned.</p>
<p>Who are these "most people"? The former President of Stanford said much the opposite. Most people in Michigan have UM as their first choice for undergrad.</p>
<p>DSC is a high school kid. DSC, don't go to Michigan. ;).</p>
<p>Barrons, I love how people have all these opinions without actually going to the schools.</p>
<p>I can't wait to read Sakky's "real" expertise with Wisconsin and Michigan.</p>
<p>
[quote]
When did you go to either school?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Perhaps you could start first. When did you attend either school? </p>
<p>
[quote]
Sakky, can you describe the undergrad program at Michigan or Wisconsin? What courses will I be taking? Who will be teaching? Who my classmates will be? Opportunites inside and outside the classroom?</p>
<p>I would really love to hear you describe the Michigan undergrad program in math.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I have a better idea. Let's bring this to the Michigan board. Or, better yet, let's ask Alexandre. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Who are these "most people"? The former President of Stanford said much the opposite. Most people in Michigan have UM as their first choice for undergrad.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
That is your opinion. I think the undergrad programs at those schools offer great educations and unlimited opportunities.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Huh? How does that address the issue at hand? The issue is not whether UM has a good undergrad program. Nobody is saying that it doesn't. The issue is whether the UM PhD programs are better.</p>
<p>barrons - that's because it costs half as much as OOS privates.</p>
<p>And no I do not go to UM. But 20+ kids at my high school do every year, so I certainly have exposure to the school.</p>
<p>The kids that go to Northwestern feel that they are much better served, with generally more accessible teachers, smaller classes, and the like. Actually the Honors College of MSU is actually becoming pretty popular, due to lack of satisfaction with the Undergraduate experience that UM offers.</p>
<p>But to say that Michigan kids put UM above the Ivies due to preference rather than the 100k plus difference in cost is lunacy.</p>
<p>Sakky, you have no idea. Just like I thought. ;)</p>
<p>"I have a better idea. Let's bring this to the Michigan board. Or, better yet, let's ask Alexandre"</p>
<p>I don't need to ask Alexandre. ;)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Barrons, I love how people have all these opinions without actually going to the schools.</p>
<p>I can't wait to hear Sakky's "real" expertise with Wisconsin and Michigan.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I love how you expressed opinions about other schools (i.e. Texas) without having actually attended. I certainly can't wait to hear about your "expertise" about those schools.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sakky, you have no idea. Just like I thought.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No more idea than you have about UTexas? Just like I thought.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't need to ask Alexandre
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So are you afraid to get other opinions?</p>