<p>YK, with all due respect to Cornell (which is a great school), the distinction between the contract colleges and the “ivy Cornell” is of relevance to about 0.001% of the population.</p>
<p>
I disagree with some (ok, a lot) of what rjk writes, but let’s not slip into remarks like that, joking or not. I get the impression that he’s just a lifelong MI resident who’s very enthusiastic about his alma mater and has reacted aggressively to certain Duke posters who have been antagonistic toward public schools in general and Michigan in particular.</p>
<p>I do agree with bluebayou that many publics struggle to provide the same resources and/or luxuries as their private peers. Many of my friends at UNC would not have given up that experience for anything but readily admitted that Duke provided a lot of resources and luxuries that Carolina doesn’t. UCLA is similar, from what I’ve seen; the difference between Duke expanding its already huge gardens and UCLA selling its Japanese garden to save money is pretty stark and a good example. Admittedly, I agree with the others that the cash-strapped UCs are perhaps not the best gauge.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As much as i love UCLA, i’ll admit, they’re a huge money grubbing institution. The greatest thing they provide for a small but very reasonable price imo is the Ashe center which is an amazing bargain.</p>
<p>But getting back to the point, as someone who’s spends a ton of time at both USC and UCLA, i can tell you that the quality difference isn’t as big as it seems even though the former is private and the latter is public (at least i haven’t really noticed.) There are some small inconveniences here and there that i might not find at a private university (like being able to pay with my Visa card; or having the restrooms cleaned more often) but it isn’t anything that’s made an impact on my education. </p>
<p>Addmitedly, this quarter classes became full very quickly, and many conflicted with one another, but i was only waitlisted for one of my classes (which i got added into) so again, i haven’t witnessed too many budget problems.</p>
<p>With regard to the Japanese garden, as sad as i am to see it gone, it just wasn’t economically viable for UCLA to keep it for two reasons: 1) lack of partking (only two parking spots) made UCLA extremely limit the number of people who could attend said garden (i believe last year it was only 2k) and it cost +100-150k per year to maintain. Given the amount of people who benefit from it, it wouldn’t make economic sense to keep it.</p>
<p>But i do agree with you, that with the exception of UCLA and Berkeley, the other UCs may perhaps not be the best to gauge.</p>
<p>USC is more or less a public school at a private school price. Not much better than NYU.</p>
<p>The best undergrad education is at small liberal arts colleges, not the big elite universities where intro classes (eg, bio) can have 300 students and be taught by a TA whose 3rd or 4th language is English. The Harvards, Berkeleys are for grad school/professional school. Colleges like Williams, Middlebury, Swarthmore, Kenyon, St. John’s (Annapolis & Santa Fe), Pomona, Bowdoin, etc., have small classes and professors focused on undergrad education.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s not gone yet. I believe they have a couple of months before they take bids on it, after which they have to sell it to the highest bidder.</p>
<p>Warblersrule, The gardens are attached to the former Carter estate which makes it impossible to expand. Land in Bel Air is among the most expensive in the world. This wouldn’t be Durham. </p>
<p>If they charged the people who saw it, they could pay for upkeep and keep it, but obviously they would have to let a few more in to lessen the charge. 2k/200 viewable days, say, is only 10/day. There has to be more, along with shuttle service from the U’s parking. </p>
<p>I’m hoping a strategy of the U – putting out notice that it’s on the block, months beforehand – is to help bring in donations to pay for upkeep ‘for perpetuity’ so the U wouldn’t have to relinquish it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>they started unloading all of the sculptures IIRC. I suppose that whoever buys the land can always put them back though. I meant ‘gone’ as in its no longer available for public viewing (could be wrong about this though.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Donations wouldn’t do it. It costs the university roughly 150k annually. Even if they could get donations to keep it, they’d likely dry up quickly and would still only postpone the problem. Hugh Hefner certainly has the money to buy it. (and he lives in the area) but i don’t really see his effort to do so (other than for philanthropic reasons.) The Getty Foundation could do it too i imagine. The facts remain however. They got a court order for permission to sell the land and were granted that permission. They’re definitely selling it. That being said, i do like your idea of a shuttle service to the gardens.</p>
<p>It doesn’t have many sculptures like the Sculpture Garden on campus. And I was speaking of a combination of charging people – it was stupid that they never did charge – along with a donation-endowment to pay for much of the upkeep for perpetutity. </p>
<p>Selling it piecemeal, if this is what they’re in fact doing, would bring in more $'s but would of course destroy the gardens, and people would be even more upset. I didn’t know if this was their intent; certainly I hope not.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>$150k would require a $3 million endowment donation to allow it to last into perpetuity. I don’t think it’d be too difficult to raise that, considering how much UCLA raises each year.</p>
<p>But then again, we could let the Stanford money mgrs handle it and return >> 5%. ;)</p>
<p>^ aw, UCLA’s money managers can’t figure out how to get a >5% return? Maybe Stanford could give them a few pointers. ;)</p>
<p>“Warblersrule, The gardens are attached to the former Carter estate which makes it impossible to expand. Land in Bel Air is among the most expensive in the world. This wouldn’t be Durham.”</p>
<p>Ah yes; location, location, location. ;-)</p>