<p>^^ Actually, according to the latest US News rankings UCD, UCI, and UCSB are tied for #12 public university, after UC Berkeley, UVA, UCLA, Michigan, UNC Chapel Hill, William & Mary, Georgia Tech, Wisconsin, UCSD, UIUC, and U Washington, in that order. They're good , but let's not get carried away.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The simplest way to fix it would be to restore funding. To do that you need to fix the budget deficit. Restoring the vehicle license fee and repealing Prop 13 would certainly help.
[/quote]
The simplest way to fix it would be to raise the tuition after cutting waste.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>^^ Actually, according to the latest US News rankings UCD, UCI, and UCSB are tied for #12 public university, after UC Berkeley, UVA, UCLA, Michigan, UNC Chapel Hill, William & Mary, Georgia Tech, Wisconsin, UCSD, UIUC, and U Washington, in that order. They're good , but let's not get carried away.<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>Correct - sorry for the typo. The point being any of these UCs are awesome schools and by no means second or third tier. </p>
<p>Quite frankly I personally feel we all get carried away with the rankings and often lose sight of the big picture.</p>
<p>If you're an employer looking to hire your next great employee, how much of a difference is it going to matter to the average employer if that person graduated from #5 or #10? I don't think that much in the big scheme of things.</p>
<p>I meant without raising tuition, since that would make it harder to retain top students.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>Coureur, what are your thoughts on what the UCs should do? Something's got to give.<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>As I said back in post #56, the UCs should start by closing that boondoggle UC Merced and diverting the money into maintaining quality at the other campuses.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The simplest way to fix it would be to restore funding. To do that you need to fix the budget deficit. Restoring the vehicle license fee and repealing Prop 13 would certainly help.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If you repeal Prop 13, a lot of us would have to use our tuition $ to pay for our property taxes. I'm not liking that idea.</p>
<p>I agree with bclintonk's analysis, except that I don't think the UCs will follow Michigan.
All the comments I've seen on these threads from Californians reflect the belief that they have something special that other states don't have. Also that, as taxpayers, they deserve their use. Forget the fact that Californians are unable or unwilling to support the UCs, even at current degraded levels.</p>
<p>bc: please check out the operative word RELATIVE in my post. Hoedown is absolutely correct: if UMich reduced OOS kids, its selectivity (test scores + gpas) would decline. And yes, it would need more money from teh state.</p>
<p>
[quote]
No, Michigan;s move to increase OOS enrollment is not driven by demographic necessity. Instead, it's a shrewd financial move, as well as a shrewd move to enhance the quality of its student body.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It may have been a shrewd move, but think about it now. If the state of Michigan had the monied class of NYC or Winetka, or Beverly Hills and a gazillion other rich 'hoods with great schools (and test scores), do you really think it woud be importing academic talent to the extent it does?</p>
<p>
[quote]
It's only a matter of time before the UCs begin admitting a larger number of OOS applicants to boost their tuition revenue in order to compensate for cutbacks in legislative appropriations.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not gonna happen, at least in the near term. The folks in Sacramento just aren't that forward thinking. And, from a practical matter, the Big Two are landlocked and cannot expand their student bodies. Thus, to admit more OOS would displace instate kids at the two flagships, who are most likely poorer, with fewer resources. THAT will never pass the Legislature. Merced would take any and every OOS who applies but no one on thier right mind would pay $50k for that collegiate "experience."</p>
<p>
[quote]
Restoring the vehicle license fee and repealing Prop 13 would certainly help.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The University is NOT funded by local property taxes; thus, Prop 13 is not relevant.</p>
<p>How landlocked are they? A depression would be a good time to pick up distressed real estate. The schools in Boston have been quietly accumulating property for some time in Brighton and other areas.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The University is NOT funded by local property taxes; thus, Prop 13 is not relevant.
[/quote]
If the state was more flush with cash they could continue to support UC funding at historic levels. Instead, we get to ballot initiatives for bond money and get further into debt.</p>
<p>Prop 13 not passing may have stunted the growth of the housing bubble. Case study: Texas.</p>
<p>
[quote]
How landlocked are they?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The City of Bezerkely would sue for any land grab by Cal. And UCLA is bounded by Bel Air to the north, Beverly Hills to the east, Brentwood to the west -- not exactly depressed territory. :D</p>
<p>
[quote]
If the state was more flush with cash they could continue...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>In total tax **burden<a href="of%20which%20property%20tax%20is%20only%20one%20component">/b</a>, California ranks 6th in the nation. Clearly, funding ain't the issue.</p>
<p>^ Oh I know there are a lot of spending inefficiencies and that would be the first place to look.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It may have been a shrewd move, but think about it now. If the state of Michigan had the monied class of NYC or Winetka, or Beverly Hills and a gazillion other rich 'hoods with great schools (and test scores), do you really think it woud be importing academic talent to the extent it does?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, that brings up an interesting point. U-M in its own way is a regional school for in-staters, in that it pulls largely from the wealthiest suburbs & cities across the state (Oakland County, the Grosse Pointes, Ann Arbor, Grand Rapids). One could argue that it currently under-recruits some of the talent in outlying areas. There may not be the same money there, but there is quality to be had. A lot of those kids don't apply to U-M because they want to stay closer to home or go somewhere they perceive as "friendlier" like MSU. But I think if U-M ever wanted to open up the war chest and go aggressively after those students, I think it could be quite successful. The decline in quality would not necessarily have to be as steep as you might think, although the affluence of the student body would certainly even out.</p>
<p>I guess I think, overall, U-M's got untapped possibilities in the state that are better than one might suspect. Even given the dismal economy. Of course, this is all hypothetical and pointless--my favorite kind of argument. :)</p>
<p>
[quote]
lot of those kids don't apply to U-M because they want to stay closer to home or go somewhere they perceive as "friendlier" like MSU.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Which just reinforces my ('hypothetical') point: the extremely smart folks at UMich read their demographic tea leaves, and made shrewd decisions based on those demographics. But, the UC flagships don't have THAT demogpraphic issue, at least not today.</p>
<p>Does anyone really believe the UCs can raise tuition without horrendous effects? It's already much more expensive than most state systems at about $25K/yr. Most have 4 year graduation rates in the thirties!! Financial aid is awful for the middle class and includes lots of loans for the poor. My sister's family didn't get a cent for 3 kids in school at the same time with a $90K income. Who in their right mind would pay more?</p>
<p>The state's economic health continues to get worse. I think the solution has got to be to make these schools more economically self reliant as other states have done. There will be some form of pain for Californians.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>All the comments I've seen on these threads from Californians reflect the belief that they have something special that other states don't have.<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>All the comments I've seen from many non-Californians on many CC threads over the years, lamenting the high cost and/or long odds of acceptance for OOS applicants to the UCs, indicate many residents of other states share that belief.</p>
<p>Here's the problem that I think faces the UC system. The desirability of a college comes, in part, from how selective a college can be in choosing a student body and the quality of instruction and physical plant once those top notch students get there. A winning combination.</p>
<p>For the near term (what I'm interested in at present, since my S is a Jr in HS in CA), the selectivity for the UC system at the top end is going to continue. They are saying the 2009 applicant pool is 5% higher than last year, which broke a record. This doesn't tell us whether that additional 5% are the creme de la creme or just students looking for a good deal at a reasonable price. Probably some of both.</p>
<p>What's going to cause the cracks in the system is when the instruction (read: professors) and physical plant (including those important reserach facilities) begin to deteriorate, and those creme de al creme students take notice. In the age of the internet, it can take place in the blink of an eye.</p>
<p>Will it happen overnight? No, but it is happening before our very eyes. I know some UC profs. The older ones will stick it out, ensuring any state mandated pay reductions come back to them in additional retirement income. The younger ones are already starting to keep their eyes peeled.</p>
<p>There are bookshelves filled with fiscal solutions in Sacramento but no political will to implement them. Two broad ones: 1) Adjust the property tax system so that commerical properties owners again pay their share of the tax burden. They are protected until Prop 13 because, due to legal moves, commerical owners can shows sales as no sales, capping the tax increase. Few residential owners can pull this off. 2) Adjust the sales tax system to include services and not just goods. The sales tax system is based on the old economy, not the new one. Tell me that the resident of Beverly Hills doesn't pay more to get their hair cut than the resident of Compton.</p>
<p>Okay, enough from me. This is all excruciating for me since I'm a government finance professional (local level) and my H is a professor (USC.)</p>
<p>The long term future for CA will dim more until the political log jam is broken.</p>
<p>Findaplace, by all reports, the problems with keeping top faculty has arrived. Delayed facility maintenance has arrived. And the new financial aid initiatives at ivies and top LACs and the like are here too.</p>
<p>The prop 13 debate is an endless debate and seems no closer to resolution than it's ever been.</p>
<p>This must have an impact on the ability of the UCs to attract top students and it can only get worse with further budget cuts. Protecting space for CA students in a declining system seems counter intuitive to me.</p>
<p>hmom5:</p>
<p>What problems have you seen with keeping top faculty? The credentials of the faculty at the UCs are top-notch and they seem loaded with Nobel laureates and other award winners along with having top researchers. Also, at least at UCSD and UCLA, I don't see any facility problems at all and in fact there's a lot of new construction going on all the time. UCLA has added new dorms and is renovating older ones. UCSD just completed a large expansion to the Price Center and recently opened a new 'college' on the campus complete with new dorms and dining halls. There's a lot of other new construction on these campuses in addition to this. The grounds themselves are maintained very well.</p>
<p>There also doesn't seem to be a problem with the UCs attracting top students as evidenced by the selectivity at the top UCs ratcheting up every year.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>What problems have you seen with keeping top faculty?<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>I remember reading an article about Berkeley having trouble keeping young faculty, the Nobel laureates of tomorrow. The problem was the disrepair of the science labs in which the professor would be doing his or her research and the $$ extracted from professors' grants for the fixtures. Other schools were offering better facilities, less $$ taken from grants, and sometimes better salaries.</p>