<p>Obviously you would couple my proposal with a general raising of the grading curve. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then let me stop you right there, for the fact is, that group of students who have 2.3’s or less at the top UC’s implicitly includes those students who are earning less than 2.0’s and hence not even passing at all. That means that they won’t be benefiting from their degrees, because they won’t even make it to graduation at all. These students would clearly have been better off at an easier school from which they could have actually graduated. It’s far better to graduate from a lower UC or a CalState than to flunk out of Berkeley. </p>
<p>Furthermore, even those students with GPA’s between 2.0 and 2.3 and hence are (barely) passing would likewise benefit from going to an easier school where they would presumably earn better grades. After all, even the worst (non-athlete) student at Berkeley is nevertheless still one of the better students in the nation. He would be better off at a system that is more suited to his talents and where he can succeed. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Whoever said anything about providing people with fewer opportunities? In fact, the opposite is true: somebody who succeeds at UCMerced is certainly going to have more opportunities than somebody earning mediocre grades at Berkeley. Let’s face it - you can’t really do much of anything with a 2.1 from Berkeley. Few decent employers will want to hire you, as many of them implement GPA cutoffs of 3.0 or, at the very least, a 2.5. Nor will you be admitted to even an average graduate school with those sorts of grades. </p>
<p>And besides, I fail to see why a proposal to enforce greater ‘tiering’ of the UC campuses is so controversial, for after all, it happens right now. Right now, 75% of all Berkeley freshmen applicants - all of whom are UC eligible and therefore already represent the very best of all high school students - are rejected. Is it then really so controversial to push that figure to 80 or 85%? As Berkeley is already rejecting the vast majority of its applicants, presumably the less qualified ones, what’s wrong with rejecting more?</p>
<p>What is ironic is that Congress enacted no such requirement for the public universities - perhaps for reasons of constitutional Federalism - with the result that it is now often times cheaper for a poor student to attend a top private school rather than a public one.</p>
<p>Sakky, I think you’re confused. I said the last two things you quoted, while someone else made the totally different statement with the grading curve.</p>
<p>I SUPPORT UC Merced, and I SUPPORT expanding it…so all your argument are moot. You did exactly what I said you do and you took out of context quotes in order to argue for no reason. On that issue, we agree, so why are you still trying to agrue against it? Oh thats right, you misquoted me with a counterproductive criticism…</p>
<p>I agree, but then the key question is to identify those particular courses of study that foster more innovation than others do, and subsidize them preferentially. </p>
<p>As a (possibly controversial) case in point, I would argue that law careers are not value-adds in terms of fostering innovation, and if anything, may be value-subtracts, in that more lawyers means more companies engaged in legal wrangling and chicanery rather than producing actual innovation. The abuses of the patent system are evident of this: plenty of companies have become patent ■■■■■■ by patenting ‘innovations’ that they themselves never attempt to commercialize, but purely by actively blocking other companies from commercializing those innovations without paying a licensing fee. Even if such ■■■■■■ fail to assert their patent rights, both parties of the lawsuit nevertheless pay legal fees to litigate that case which represents money in the lawyers’ pockets - money that could have been spent on actual innovation.</p>
<p>Who said that I was arguing against you? On the point regarding UCM, we seem to largely agree, the only possible area of dispute being how to expand UCM - whether by my proposal of having the top UC’s simply reject more of their worst students who could then be shunted to UCM, or through your more voluntary approach. What I will say is that the UC system is already tiered - with Berkeley and UCLA clearly at the top - and will remain so whether we like it or not. My proposal conforms naturally to the tiering system that already exists. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I “misquoted” you? Are those not your quotes? Did I take them out of context? </p>
<p>My criticism, if that is how you choose to take it (as I would have chosen the word ‘refinement’), is that I disagree with much of the premise of your logic. Right now, plenty of Berkeley students are failing or otherwise performing poorly. They would be better off at UCM where they could actually succeed. By doing so, those students would not be provided with fewer opportunities but actually with more opportunities.</p>
<p>Besides, even if my “criticisms” - if that is indeed what they are - are truly counterproductive, why do you care? Seems to me that you don’t really want me to be productive at all - indeed, you actually (inappropriately) advised me to leave the thread entirely. So if I am not being productive, why is that a concern of yours? Shouldn’t that be a good thing, according to you?</p>
<p>Hey guys so here is the official info about the cuts:</p>
<p>"Governor Jerry Brown today released his 2011-12 state budget proposal that calls for a $500 million reduction in state support for the California State University, equal to an 18 percent reduction. "</p>
<p>"the governor’s budget reduces state support for all of California’s public higher education institutions by $1.4 billion. The University of California is also facing a proposed $500 million budget reduction with $400 million proposed to be cut from the California Community Colleges. "</p>
<p>"…they predicted that daily life at the schools would surely suffer in various ways, including more-crowded classes and less pristine campuses.</p>
<p>“It’s not so much the quality of instruction but the quality of the overall educational experience for these students” that may be affected, said Steve Boilard, higher education director at the state Legislative Analyst’s Office,…"</p>
<p>"… programs deemed not essential to the university’s teaching and research missions “are going to be subject to a great deal of scrutiny and are at jeopardy of being closed.”</p>