<p>Hell, back in 2001, Chancellor Berdahl himself said that the budget problems would hurt education at Cal. Appeal to authority, I know, but I'm pretty sure he knows what he's talking about.</p>
<p>He also said this: the university will be unable to retain its faculty and staff without the 4 percent pay increase.</p>
<p>Frankly, I'm not sure what you're trying to argue. But since you quoted a lengthy article that dealt with buget problems and how they will or have already caused a rise in tuition and fees, I assumed that this represented your opinion on the matter.</p>
<p>"I for one am willing to face it. I can see why people choose privates over UCs. Why is this so hard to imagine?"</p>
<p>When have I said that I can't imagine people choosing a private school over Cal (which is the only uc I'm prepared to talk about)? I would have gone to harvard had I been accepted. I'd argue that if you have the money and are offered a school like harvard you'd be a fool not to take it. My problem is that people make these sweeping statements about Cal and why its so inferior to privates yet they don't back it up. You've at least tried, but what your argument looks to have come down to is that buget cuts 1) will someday (but not today) mean that the faculty begins to slip and 2) Cal's already cheap tuition/fin aid might rise, so it will only cost you an extra 80 thousand dollars to attend a private and 3) having fresh paint and happy janitors is worth that extra 80 thousand dollars. Maybe down the road buget problems will affect UG education, and I hope these problems are fixed, but that's like saying you wont eat fresh eggs because you know that eventually they'll go bad. If in fact there is a mass departure of all the top professors in 10 or 20 years (or earlier) then you can come here and make that argument, otherwise it doesn't hold up for people that are enoying the extremely strong faculty here.</p>
<p>
[quote]
2) Cal's already cheap tuition/fin aid might rise, so it will only cost you an extra 80 thousand dollars to attend a private
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Again, you do realize that most people don't pay full-tuition at top schools, right? </p>
<p>Snuggle,</p>
<p>I'm arguing that these problems affect UGs first, and grads later. There are very few fields that I would choose Columbia over Berkeley over for graduate school. However, undergrad is a different story. The problems that undergrad faces are further intensified by budgetary issues, as well as facilities and libraries, because undergrads require holistic educations. Grads are insulated from these issues, and the programs are less likely to be affected in the short run.</p>
<p>And you keep acting like fresh paint and qualified and happy workers on campus don't matter, but they do. Image affects your education. Why do you think that people talk about "pretty campuses?" Again, you can open a book anywhere on earth and learn facts. It's the experience as an undergrad that matters the most.</p>
<p>"Again, you do realize that most people don't pay full-tuition at top schools, right?"</p>
<p>And you realize that most people don't pay full tuition at Cal, right? And when its all said and done Cal is still much less expensive? All I can say is that you haven't even come close to convincing me of anything. If happy workers and fresh paint float your boat then don't come here. We will miss you but we'll find a way to surivive. And the pretty campus thing doesn't make sense. Again, I'll point to Stanford, which is across the board one of the best schools in the world yet it looks like a large Taco Bell.</p>
<p>Okay, then you tell me something.</p>
<p>Why is Cal undergrad ranked so much lower than its grad programs usually rank?</p>
<p>"Why is Cal undergrad ranked so much lower than its grad programs usually rank?"</p>
<p>The only place that Cal undergrad is ranked lower that its Grad (I think) is USNews. Now, in grad rankings they use only peer review, while UG has many other components. If, like grad, the ug ranking used only peer review I believe Cal would be ranked fifth or sixth in the nation.</p>
<p>All the international rankings tend to focus on research more than anything else. Even though USNews is much maligned, it's the closest thing we have to a decent ranking system for undergrad programs.</p>
<p>If Cal's undergrad isn't underperforming compared to the grad, then why do Cal undergrads have to get higher GPAs to get into med schools than students at privates? </p>
<p>I'm not saying that Cal is bad (20th is by no means bad.) But I think its undergrad, with all the great departments, should be in the top 10. But it isn't. That's a problem.</p>
<p>You asked a question and I answered it. And I would argue that international rankings tend to focus on peer evaluation, which, as we know, helps Cal at UG and Grad. You talk about appealing to authority. The authority on universities would seem to be those that work and live college life. They seem to think Cal is the sixth best school in the country for undergrad. Personally I don't think putting a number on a school is helpfull to anyone. I think you should learn as much about a school as you can and then make an informed decision. If you don't like what you see at Cal then don't go there. Same for any other school. My problem is with the people on this board who constantly denagrade Cal and then don't have a clue as to why its bad. When it comes down to it, it all has a alot to do with prestige. Why is HYSP better than Cal? Because its HYSP, thats why. People say its better to go to one of those schools so it must be better. I actually agree. You'll have a leg up going to one of those schools over Berkeley. I don't think going just any private school will offer that same leg up. Emory, Rice, Wustl, Northwestern etc are all fine, fine schools, but what is it exactly, besides being private, makes them better than Berkeley?</p>
<p>SnuggleMonster,</p>
<p>Don't get me wrong, I don't think that Cal or UCLA are inherently inferior to most of the universities ranked higher. However, I do think that the undergrad programs have a lot more lumps that need to be ironed out before I can wholeheartedly recommend them over the top 10 privates. Both of them do just fine at the graduate level, so why can't they do the same with undergrad? Look at the top 10 privates, and I think part of it is numbers of students, facilities for undergrads, treatment of undergrads, and perception. The last one, of course, is the toughest to change. However, I believe that the student numbers, facilities, and treatment of undergrads can be improved a great deal.</p>
<p>And then we'd see Cal easily in the top 15, and UCLA probably in the top 20. That's the way it should be. But we have to admit that the undergrad program has lumps, first.</p>
<p>That is your opinion and you don't need me to validate it, but I disagree with the severity of the "lumps" you mention. I'd put the environment at Cal next to any school in the world. I'd take the faculty over any school in the world. Maybe thats just me. Alot of this is preference. There are some less than stellar students here. There are some red tape issues. There are buget problems (even though for the life of me I haven't noticed them). Add those up and I think the positives far outweigh the negatives. That doesn't mean I think Cal is the "best" school in the world, or even that its better than any of the top 10 or 20 privates, but I think it gets an unfair rap on these boards. You mentioned perception being a big thing to turn around. Well thats what I'm trying to do, because the perception is more often than not wrong. Let me ask you, if you surveyed everyone on these boards and asked them "by percentage, who has larger classes, Cal or Cornell?" What do you think the answer would be? Yet Cal doesn't have larger classes than Cornell, and they're only slightly larger than Harvard, Brown MIT and several others.</p>
<p>SnuggleMonster,</p>
<p>I look at Cal and I see a diamond in the rough for undergrad, but for grad, it's probably THE FINEST diamond in graduate education (overall.) Unfortunately, Snuggle, I think you have had the ideal Cal undergrad experience. I don't think most have it. And I think that the problems can be fixed easily for a lot of people.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, public schools have different goals from privates, and our desire to have our "Public Ivys" be comparable to "Private Ivys" is usually stymied by political reality.</p>
<p>I have no problem with Cal being a large public school. And I don't think my experience is unusual. You might be forgetting that I actually go to this school, which makes my opinion a tad bit more valuable on topics of what students really think. Unlike many people here, I don't want Cal to try to mirror the Ivys. I could have gone to some of those schools and I chose Cal because the I loved it the way it is. That's not to say there aren't a variety of problems that I'd like to be fixed, but there aren't as many and they aren't as severe as you'd make them out. You have authority on issues involving UCLA, and if its as bad as you paint it I don't know why anyone would go there.</p>
<p>Snuggle,</p>
<p>When did I ever paint UCLA as bad? Why do you insist upon having me say things that I'm not? Please...stop.</p>
<p>If you think I'm bad when it comes to UCs needing improvement, then don't ever ever talk to sakky. Ever.</p>
<p>And I realize you go to Cal. I'm not stupid. But at the same time, there are plenty of people who don't "go" to Cal as undergrads who I think have a perfectly good grasp on the issues facing undergrad education.</p>
<p>"When did I ever paint UCLA as bad? Why do you insist upon having me say things that I'm not? Please...stop."</p>
<p>The students aren't as good, as you're professors have told you. Money problems have forced you to miss classes, delaying graduation. "Tons of people complain about class availability." You say UCLA is loosing professors to privates. You say lack of funding has affected "shows, student activites and common areas." Since I can attest that those things aren't happening at Cal, I can only conclude that you're talking about UCLA.</p>
<p>"If you think I'm bad when it comes to UCs needing improvement, then don't ever ever talk to sakky. Ever."</p>
<p>Trust me, I have no desire to hear him drone on anymore than I already have.</p>
<p>"And I realize you go to Cal. I'm not stupid. But at the same time, there are plenty of people who don't "go" to Cal as undergrads who I think have a perfectly good grasp on the issues facing undergrad education"</p>
<p>Better than people that actually "go" there? Seems weird to me. We're talking about UG experience, so I would assume you'd want to talk to someone that has experienced it.</p>
<p>Snuggle,</p>
<p>Actually, Berkeley loses profs all the time. So do most schools. One grad student I'm acquainted with at Harvard moved there with a professor who got offered a better salary and left.</p>
<p>Money problems never forced me to miss classes, but you're going to tell me that NOBODY at Cal has problems getting into impacted classes? Or getting into non-impacted classes, even? </p>
<p>And as for campus resources, talk to my buddy at Boalt. He complained bitterly about how Cornell afforded better lecture halls. It almost made him leave for Cornell. And that's graduate school, and Boalt is one of the better funded UC law schools!</p>
<p>
[quote]
Trust me, I have no desire to hear him drone on anymore than I already have.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think sakky's good for Cal, if anything. He's the kick in the pants that the undergrad program needs to be the best. A lot of undergrads, in my experience can't handle having their programs criticized. I couldn't handle it when I was an undergrad at UCLA. But I find that after you graduate and leave those wonderful, insulated walls, you realize that the name value of your school is more than just a pride issue. I want to see Cal perform just as much as I want to see UCLA perform. But just saying, "I don't want to hear it" isn't good enough. We need to tackle the fact that Harvard and Yale and Columbia have better yield rates and tend to get more of the top percentile of students. They can't be going JUST for the name. There's something at those programs that really appeals to the best students. What is it?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Better than people that actually "go" there? Seems weird to me. We're talking about UG experience, so I would assume you'd want to talk to someone that has experienced it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Personally, I tend to believe the words of administrators and chancellors more than myself or even my own anecdotal evidence. If they say that Cal has problems to tackle, then I tend to think that is so.</p>
<p>Can you really say that your major represents the whole of Cal's program?</p>
<p>"money problems never forced me to miss classes."</p>
<p>See, those money problems were overblown.</p>
<p>"And as for campus resources, talk to my buddy at Boalt. He complained bitterly about how Cornell afforded better lecture halls. It almost made him leave for Cornell."</p>
<p>First, I thought we were talking about UG and second, who cares if some law student wants to go to cornell because they have better lecure halls.</p>
<p>"Personally, I tend to believe the words of administrators and chancellors more than myself or even my own anecdotal evidence."</p>
<p>Except when say its the fifth best school for UG in the country, right? Those are the very people that fill out those peer reviews.</p>
<p>And no, my major doesn't represent the whole school, but I have friends in dozens of majors and I'm up on campus every day.</p>
<p>
[quote]
See, those money problems were overblown.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You ignored my caveat. You don't think that a lot of impacted, popular majors could do with some better funding, or better yet, a population decrease? </p>
<p>One of the big problems the UCs are facing is decreasing funding along with increasing enrollment at the UG level. You don't think this is bound to hurt the education?</p>
<p>
[quote]
First, I thought we were talking about UG and second, who cares if some law student wants to go to cornell because they have better lecure halls.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I already said it was an imperfect example, but it shows that funding matters, especially with yield. Part of making undergrad programs great is getting a great student body. If schools like Stanford (which you may legitimately argue have worse opportunities for an undergrad) can pull students from Cal easily, then it's a problem.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Except when say its the fifth best school for UG in the country, right? Those are the very people that fill out those peer reviews.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I strongly suspect (and I'm sure you'll disagree) that the peer review, though one of the best metrics for measuring a school's quality, is largely dependent on graduate program quality. After all, that's what academics know the most about and care the most about. Research makes the research university world go round.</p>
<p>Besides, I don't know that it's accurate to say that the peer review means that they think it's the "fifth best school for UG in the country." And even if that is what they believe, why do Cal students seem to have a harder time getting into top grad programs than their Ivy equivalents? Something is amiss there. </p>
<p>Look SnuggleMonster, I'm not saying that Cal is bad. Please, for the love of God, don't think that's what I'm saying. I think that if you consider the quality of the graduate programs, and the quality of grad students the SAME departments can pull, then it's a problem when the undergrad program is not getting students of the same caliber. That's not how it should be.</p>
<p>" strongly suspect (and I'm sure you'll disagree) that the peer review, though one of the best metrics for measuring a school's quality, is largely dependent on graduate program quality."</p>
<p>If that's true, then you are basically saying that those people who take part in the peer review are idiots. They are idiots because 1) they can't read, as I'm sure that the rubric they use to evaltuate schools states that they are filling out a review for the UG rankings. Or 2) they are idiots because they cant tell the difference between UG and Grad school. They can't wrap their heads around the idea that there are two parts to a school, so they simply grade the school on the quality of their grad programs. I choose to put more faith into the many Phds who assess these schools.</p>
<p>"why do Cal students seem to have a harder time getting into top grad programs than their Ivy equivalents?"</p>
<p>I don't know, but my guess would be that you are baseing this statement on percentages, which hurts a big school like Cal because, as I've said, our bottom 20 percent of students are not as strong as the bottom 20th of our peer schools. That said, I believe that Cal undergrads produce more Phds than any other school in the country, even if they don't send as many kids, percentage wise, to grad school.</p>
<p>"2) they are idiots because they cant tell the difference between UG and Grad school."</p>
<p>Yes, bascially. But nowhere did UCLAri use the term "Idiot" so I think you should stop tweaking his arguments. On the actual forms that the peer reviewers fill out, the only instruction is to rank them based on whether the review thinks the school is distinguished or marginal. There is no explicit instruction that factors like size, facilities, student quality should be considerd.</p>
<p>"There is no explicit instruction that factors like size, facilities, student quality should be considerd."</p>
<p>But they do know they're filling out review sheets for USnews UG ranking, don't they? It would be a scandal if they didn't. The idiot part was mine. That's how I would view someone that can't read or doesn't realize what kind of form they're filling out.</p>