What's that you say? A NEW UC? Behold... UC REDDING!!!

<p>On another forum (and on Google) there is information about a proposed "UC Redding" to be built in the near future!!
I think that's awesome, just because of the area it's in.
The plan is no where close to even being finalized... but still..</p>

<p>What do you think?</p>

<p>Sounds good. The state of CA population is not getting any smaller. However, Redding may be too far away from major population centers.</p>

<p>IMO, they need to work on UCM before they try making another campus...</p>

<p>Sounds Interesting. Here's the other thread on this:</p>

<p><a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/240383-uc-redding.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/240383-uc-redding.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>We could always use more UCs! But really, we have to get UC-like systems in other states, too...</p>

<p>^ Hmmm...what's with the baby steps then? Look at the history:</p>

<p>UC Santa Barbara: 1944
UC Riverside: 1954
UC San Diego: 1959
UC Davis: 1959
UC Santa Cruz: 1965
UC Irvine: 1965</p>

<p>Despite the short time period between foundings, they all turned out well.
California needs to regain the ambition it did in the early 1960s...those were the state's "golden" years.</p>

<p>i wonder how california can afford this. Next to Michigan (also a state run by democrats), its in the worst financial situation. They are currently trying to cut the education budget among other things such as Meidcaid.</p>

<p>i heard arnold is privately helping to fund for UC redding</p>

<p>
[quote]
we have to get UC-like systems in other states, too...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>California benefits from the UC system because they have so many people who can fund it through their taxes, and also so many outstanding high school students. Few other states would be able to have chain campuses like the UC system. Some state schools have "branch" campuses but these aren't the same IMO.</p>

<p>New York has the SUNY system, which is nowhere near as well-known or admired as the UC schools.</p>

<p>^ proud to be californian.</p>

<p>Well Texas has something similar to UC's and SUNY's, although agreeably not as well known.</p>

<p>Texas has the UT system which operates 9 universities (UT - Austin being the flagship) and also has the Texas A&M system which operates 10 universities (Texas A&M - College Station being the flagship).</p>

<p>I think the Texas public system is probably closer to the UC system than New York SUNY's just because the top universities, UT - Austin and A&M - College Station, are pretty well known.</p>

<p>i heard texas a&m ppl have only beer barns to hang out in and are best in judging in beef (no joke).</p>

<p>Joker, in answer to your question how can California afford it -- in short -- despite the current budget woes, California is an enormous economy. </p>

<p>If it were a country, it would be among the richest nations on the planet.</p>

<p>Neo, UT is well known -- but Michigan, Virginia, North Carolina -- are considered much better -- in part because they're older.</p>

<p>^ Yeah I know UT isn't the BEST of the publics, I was just saying the whole Texas system is similar to the California system.</p>

<p>-UC is the Tier 1 in California and UT and A&M are like the Tier 1 systems in Texas</p>

<p>-Texas also has a Texas State system (small) which is like Cal's Tier 2 Cal State system</p>

<p>So they're pretty similar. California just has a lot more highly ranked programs I think.</p>

<p>And @stevehwan.... A&M actually has really good engineering and biology departments. I know their engineering is ranked in the top 15. Also, College Station is a really nice college town with tons of places to hang out besides... erm... beer barns.</p>

<p>well i saw a youtube video of texas a&m that said that so yeah... i know it isnt completely true.</p>

<p>katliamom, i don't think that you understand the problem of a state that is mostly run (with the exception of the governor) by democrats.</p>

<p>I don't exactly think that this means that they are rich: "CALIFORNIA HAS MORE THAN $60 BILLION IN DEBT − AND THAT AMOUNT IS GROWING RAPIDLY."</p>

<p><a href="http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/jtf/JTF_PublicDebtJTF.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/jtf/JTF_PublicDebtJTF.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>The state of California is currently closing 1/3 of its national parks, scaling back medicaid programs, and is simply incapable of addressing its horrendous infrastructure and vastly underfunded schooling system. How can they afford another university? They can't. Leave it up the liberals in California to be fiscally irresponsible.</p>

<p>Because the Republicans in Congress these last 7 years have just done a fine job of being fiscally responsible right...</p>

<p>and to defend michigan... i don't really think the democrats destroyed the american auto industry, but i'm not completely sure</p>

<p><em>huge eyeroll</em></p>

<p>michigan's economic problem is not caused by frivilous spending. the auto industry is laying off jobs left and right causing severe unemployment which really hurts the economy.</p>