|
Santa Cruz is easily better than Riverside and Irvine. I'd argue it's better than San Diego in some contexts.
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 08:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 18:59 |
|
|
Kenning posted:Santa Cruz is easily better than Riverside and Irvine. I'd argue it's better than San Diego in some contexts. Physics (for one) at UCSC is top notch. Their undergrad program was better than Berkley a while back. Huh. Apparently their bragging points got even better. quote:The computer engineering Ph.D. program was rated 1st nationally for publication impact by the National Research Council in 2010.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 09:31
|
|
|
Most of the UC campuses are pretty good IME. California overall has really amazing university resources compared to other states, which is why it sucks that costs are getting so bad 
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 14:29
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:Riverside? Riverside has Republicans and that bullshit so it is pretty bottom but not like rock bottom. Merced definitely takes that cake. My wife and I drove to Yosemite a few weeks back and we looked for things to do through the area of Merced and nope.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
lancemantis posted:Complaints about UC admissions that come up are often just bad faith arguments about Berkeley, because "my childs god given right to go to Cal". The state passed a law to basically dismantle affirmative action in the admissions process, and any attempts to change that are met with outrage, because "my childs god given right to go to Cal". The people bringing up these kinds of issues aren't worried about kids getting into the UC system as a whole, they're worried about the impact on their child's more or less lottery admission into Berkeley. Thank you for making the same point twice, we didn't get it the first time. And it's not about "my child didn't get into Cal," it's "my taxes should be paying to educate other Californians, not rich Chinese kids." I don't have kids, I'm not trying to get into a UC, but I am paying taxes and consider it a bunch of crap because it's transparently about money rather than benefitting the public. Affirmative action has nothing to do with it either because that's just tokenism that doesn't help anyone besides a select few and doesn't address the root problems that are causing people to think that affirmative might not be a bad idea (mostly failures of schools in minority communities).
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 18:41
|
|
|
What is with this thread and specifically scapegoating Chinese people?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
The Wiggly Wizard posted:What is with this thread and specifically scapegoating Chinese people? I mean it's not without merit   I'm not saying it's a problem but the Chinese are the fastest growing and 2nd largest segment of the UC system
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
And the vast majority of the Chinese students are American-born, like myself, or came here as small children. There's always a bit of a wall between the American-raised Asians and the FOBs, in my experience.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
Asians also make up at least 15% of California's population, too. But really, all colleges and universities now fish for out-of-state tuition. Administrations are focused on revenue over education. It's a systemic problem that goes well beyond the UC system. The UC system just happens to be especially egregious due to the corruption and conflict of interest at the very top of its administration.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
The Wiggly Wizard posted:What is with this thread and specifically scapegoating Chinese people? It's a huge, obnoxious problem in america, because it's basically become acceptable to blame 'The Chinese' for any financial or economic woes, especially in California. You talk to people and 'China' is behind everything from UC admissions, Housing Crisis, Drought, you name it.. it's insanely racist and creepy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
redscare posted:And it's not about "my child didn't get into Cal," it's "my taxes should be paying to educate other Californians, not rich Chinese kids."
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Eh? Isn't it the reverse? Like, it's those rich foreign students who pay higher tuition that subsidizes the locals? Since the UCs also receive taxpayer funds, they're both subsidized.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
Tarezax posted:And the vast majority of the Chinese students are American-born, like myself, or came here as small children. goddamn i still remember how that shitstain taiwanese republican peter kuo made it to the second round in my state senate district by scaremongering to rich rear end in a top hat racist chinese-americans about how SCA5 would mean "babby's rightful space at cal/ucla is going to go to some black or brown untermensch from compton or richmond instead!!" having grown up here i'm perfectly comfortable saying that a lot of asian-americans here are exactly the kind of racist shitheel dylann roof was talking about when he said he respected east asians in his manifesto
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:I mean it's not without merit My (Chinese) wife got into Berkeley with poo poo grades in 2000, so its something I've seen for sure.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 21:09
|
|
Have you seen my apex seals? I seem to have lost them.
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:goddamn i still remember how that shitstain taiwanese republican peter kuo made it to the second round in my state senate district by scaremongering to rich rear end in a top hat racist chinese-americans about how SCA5 would mean "babby's rightful space at cal/ucla is going to go to some black or brown untermensch from compton or richmond instead!!" how dare those slant eyes oppose legislation that would legalize the quotas that all of the other colleges use???
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
The Wiggly Wizard posted:What is with this thread and specifically scapegoating Chinese people? They're a minority that can't be marginalized because they're not poor. It's a mixture of the Japanese paranoia of the 80s with "they took our white collar jobs!". FCKGW posted:Since the UCs also receive taxpayer funds, they're both subsidized. Typically those are only applied to in-state residents (which is why their tuition is cheaper).
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 21:13
|
|
|
b0lt posted:how dare those slant eyes oppose legislation that would legalize the quotas that all of the other colleges use??? quotas which haven't even existed in this country since before a lot of the rich assholes protesting it even immigrated here??? excuse me if i'm not sympathetic to a bunch of parents who feel they're entitled to have their kids go to a top-tier UC just because they paid out the rear end for SAT prep courses—speaking as one such kid who got them myself—and who try to project their attitudes onto the rest of us, even though most asians actually support affirmative action
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
computer parts posted:They're a minority that can't be marginalized because they're not poor. It's a mixture of the Japanese paranoia of the 80s with "they took our white collar jobs!". The whole drat university is subsidized by my taxes. Tuition barely makes a dent in the costs, out-of-state or not. (Note: I wish more of my taxes were going to education, and I would gladly pay higher taxes for that purpose. As long as I get to hit Janet Napolitano with a pie.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 21:27
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:The UC system just happens to be especially egregious due to the corruption and conflict of interest at the very top of its administration. are there any good, relatively recent articles that detail how hosed up the UC system is? I'm fascinated by how it works, how it changed over the years, dirt on the administration, etc.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 03:18
|
|
|
The Legislature passed the minimum wage increase, and Brown said he'll sign it Monday.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 03:37
|
|
|
Mokelumne Trekka posted:are there any good, relatively recent articles that detail how hosed up the UC system is? I'm fascinated by how it works, how it changed over the years, dirt on the administration, etc. See the article I posted a day or two ago about Chancellor Katehi at UC Davis.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 03:38
|
|
|
Here are the graphics from the report Residents  Non-Residents  The spreads of those non-residents admitted with academic performance above the median of admitted Californians vs those with below the median 
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 04:06
|
|
|
The Wiggly Wizard posted:See the article I posted a day or two ago about Chancellor Katehi at UC Davis. Thanks. My understanding is that Katehi will be answering questions from students tomorrow, something she has been avoiding... for obvious reasons.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 04:12
|
|
|
Litany Unheard posted:The Legislature passed the minimum wage increase, and Brown said he'll sign it Monday. Great News
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 04:44
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:quotas which haven't even existed in this country since before a lot of the rich assholes protesting it even immigrated here??? no quotas here, you're just not well rounded enough! 
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 04:53
|
|
|
On the other side of the CA College system, a nonbinding report says that CSU teachers deserve the 5% raise they're asking for. Gonna say that this will change nothing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 04:54
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:The whole drat university is subsidized by my taxes. Tuition barely makes a dent in the costs, out-of-state or not. (Note: I wish more of my taxes were going to education, and I would gladly pay higher taxes for that purpose. As long as I get to hit Janet Napolitano with a pie.) True, research is a major proportion as well, but that's usually location agnostic.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 06:11
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:The whole drat university is subsidized by my taxes. Tuition barely makes a dent in the costs, out-of-state or not. (Note: I wish more of my taxes were going to education, and I would gladly pay higher taxes for that purpose. As long as I get to hit Janet Napolitano with a pie.) I was actually curious about that, so I looked it up. Budget is here. If I'm reading it correctly, income from student tuition + fees is about $730 million, while state appropriations (educational + financing) are about $357 million.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 08:33
|
|
|
b0lt posted:no quotas here, you're just not well rounded enough! yeah, what the hell do i care about that chart? it's not like we're entitled admission to an ivy league school  also have you ever considered that, given how whitebread the ivy league schools all are, that maybe it's not affirmative action that's holding down asian enrollment there, but them actively trying to maintain a floor on white enrollment? also let's see what prop 209 did to enrollment in the UCs (which, by the way, 61% of us voted against)... wait, you mean it had a negligible impact on asian enrollment while crippling black and latino and native american enrollment?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 13:19
|
|
|
That's pretty much the outcome one would expect too; end affirmative action and watch the entry of underrepresented grous plummet. Also lol any time someone mentions quotas theyre illegal even under affirmative action Seriously, all affirmative action boils down to is: 1) if you get a qualified underrepresented candidate, please strongly consider hiring them (or admitting them in the case of a university) 2) make serious efforts at outreach to underrepresented groups; go to job fairs at HBCUs, present at events, hold special events, etc Things as simple as that have a real effect on diversity, as simple as they sound
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 14:55
|
|
|
lancemantis posted:That's pretty much the outcome one would expect too; end affirmative action and watch the entry of underrepresented grous plummet. Come on, in practice, it also means that you accept under-represented minority candidates who, at least according the normal metrics, are less qualified than the non-minority applicants. This is the reason why the policy is controversial. You can argue that the normal metrics are racist or classist or are imperfect or that, while the policy is unfair to non-minorities, the ends justify the means, and that's why lowering standards for minority candidates is justified (in a lot of cases I agree) but if you ignore that fact when summarizing the policy, you are being really dishonest. The reason why it is controversial is not because opponents to the policy are Literally Hitler. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 15:46 on Apr 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 15:43
|
|
|
[silence_kit posted:Come on, in practice, it also means that you accept under-represented minority candidates who, at least according the normal metrics, are less qualified than the non-minority applicants. This is the reason why the policy is controversial. You can argue that the normal metrics are racist or classist or are imperfect or that, while the policy is unfair to non-minorities, the ends justify the means, and that's why lowering standards for minority candidates is justified (in a lot of cases I agree) but if you ignore that fact when summarizing the policy, you are being really dishonest. The reason why it is controversial is not because opponents to the policy are Literally Hitler. aren't you kind of ignoring the catch 22 here? you need education to qualify for education, but if you don't have the education to qualify for education you can't get any education. I do understand there is a big issue with people going into higher education under prepared and sort of failing to thrive because of it though .
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 16:02
|
|
|
Space-Bird posted:aren't you kind of ignoring the catch 22 here? you need education to qualify for education, but if you don't have the education to qualify for education you can't get any education. No, I'm not ignoring that catch-22. I even admitted that lowering "normal metrics" for school admissions for minorities could be justified. My main point was that lancemantis was totally misrepresenting the affirmative action issue by glossing over the most controversial aspect of it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 16:26
|
|
|
b0lt posted:no quotas here, you're just not well rounded enough! "The Asian-American population aged X to Y" is useless information and three of those schools seem to have roughly doubled the percentage of Asians enrolled over the period (and I know that even the percentage increase doesn't show the actual raw increase due to rising enrollment figures).
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 16:44
|
|
|
Its just the usual [spoilers]racist[/spoilers] bs that will come up in a discussion about affirmative action Quotas are illegal; they're just a bs talking point from opponents You don't have to lower any standards, its not part of any affirmative action guidance, and it would be a poor idea to do so. Affirmative action doesn't provide a legal shield against discrimination laws, and its just as illegal to discriminate against non-minorities. If you dropped the standards to admit a minority candidate and block a non-minority one, you would be opening yourself up to litigation. Amazingly enough it would seem to some people, you can find underrepresented candidates that meet your bar, especially if you put in the time and effort to find them. Since you can find qualified underrepresented candidates, admitting them doesn't harm the quality of your institution. Study on the impact of prop 209 didn't indicate a higher quality student body; all it really did was remove more minority students from admission. People wrecked admittance to the UC system for underrepresented students, all so they could justify admitting a few more students from well represented groups. The politics around UC admissions are incredibly toxic [spoilers]and racist[/spoilers]. There are so many applicants and such high stakes put on admittance to these schools. Even if you're qualified you could still not be admitted, and people just can't accept that. They'll lash out at every little thing they could place blame on. People want to attack the Asian student population, but amusingly their own racism has an impact on that since plenty of people assume the Asian applicants are qualified. In this very thread, somebody declared that non-resident applicant == Chinese. Students are attacked too much. Diversity is our friend, and we should be gladly taking measures to promote a diverse student population. People are so afraid of losing their own opportunities that they will attack and block it. We should be focusing our criticisms on the things that actually hurt our university systems; students are who matter, not the enemy. We have ethical and mismanagement issues with administrations. We have serious funding issues for state schools. Plenty of states have so much corporate capture of their universities it is sad. Greed and lack of funding make administrations very open to accepting corporate money, which leads to distortions of funding for different university programs, and a transformation of academic programs into expensive vocational schooling. Administrations are attacking the oversight of the faculty members of their institutions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Come on, in practice, it also means that you accept under-represented minority candidates who, at least according the normal metrics, are less qualified than the non-minority applicants. This is the reason why the policy is controversial. In many universities (certainly the top ones) there are many more qualified candidates than seats available. Why are you assuming that minorities are not in this group of qualified candidates?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Come on, in practice, it also means that you accept under-represented minority candidates who, at least according the normal metrics, are less qualified than the non-minority applicants. This is the reason why the policy is controversial. That's not actually true in practice. Take the UT case for example: quote:
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
Gann Jerrod posted:On the other side of the CA College system, a nonbinding report says that CSU teachers deserve the 5% raise they're asking for. Gonna say that this will change nothing. The feel I'm hearing from people involved is that they're going to get the raise.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
computer parts posted:In many universities (certainly the top ones) there are many more qualified candidates than seats available. Why are you assuming that minorities are not in this group of qualified candidates? I'm not. Please don't put words in my mouth. Trabisnikof posted:That's not actually true in practice. Take the UT case for example: Alternately, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-a-darity-jr/why-were-wrong-about-affirmative-action_b_5613026.html quote:For the cohort of students they examined, students entering Duke in 2001 and 2002, the mean SAT score for the math and verbal sections for white students was 1416, and for black students it was 1275. That constitutes a 130-point gap, although Duke’s black students’ scores were well above the national average for all students taking the SAT (about 1030), and substantially above the national average for black students taking the SAT (about 860). Also, https://www.princeton.edu/~tje/files/Admission%20Preferences%20Espenshade%20Chung%20Walling%20Dec%202004.pdf quote:Based on complete data for three applicant cohorts to three of the most academically selective research universities, we show that admission bonuses for athletes and legacies rival, and sometimes even exceed, the size of preferences for underrepresented minority applicants. Being African American instead of white is worth an average of 230 additional SAT points on a 1600-point scale, but recruited athletes reap an advantage equivalent to 200 SAT points. Other things equal, Hispanic applicants gain the equivalent of 185 points, which is only slightly more than the legacy advantage, which is worth 160 points. Coming from an Asian background, however, is comparable to the loss of 50 SAT points Again, you can make the argument that the SAT/other admission standards are racist, classist, imperfect tests of applicant quality, etc. etc., but to deny that colleges do not lower the usual standards to admit minority students is magical thinking. lancemantis posted:If you dropped the standards to admit a minority candidate and block a non-minority one, you would be opening yourself up to litigation. Actually, it is done all of the time. Frankly, I am not really that opposed to it--I think that it is a great form of social welfare, but it is annoying to hear people summarize the issue by lying and glossing over the most controversial aspect of the policy. The controversy is that it is a racist/sexist policy and holds different races/sexes to different standards. I say that while the policy is writing discrimination in the law, the ends justify the means. I just wish that other supporters of the policy would be equally honest instead of launching into a social justice ideology word salad or outright lying about what the policy does.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 02:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 18:59 |
|
|
silence_kit posted:I'm not. Please don't put words in my mouth. These seem contradictory.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 02:48
|
|