The dire climate of CA public university admissions for freshmen

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=carli]

I completely respect your work ethic, flu, and I like to believe mine is similar, but I do think that we should be careful not to confuse the difference between willingness to work hard and buying in to the college admissions race. Getting in to a top tier school is not the only way (and usually not the best way) to get to the C-level position or whatever else is your definition of success.[/quote]

Carli, I agree with you somewhat… But I’m more with flu.

Let’s look at “hard work”; what is it? Is deploying your people skills to make a living hard work or hardly working? I think that too many people who are hardly working think that they work hard. And they don’t like those who actually work hard encroaching on their spaces.

In STEM, the knowledge base is so broad now that students do have to study very hard to make it.

Let’s look at it objectively. The stats show what American kids don’t do math. STEM are filled with Asians and foreign students, especially at graduate levels and above.

And numbers wise, there are only so many executive positions so not everyone can be an executive, no matter what. Good for people who can deploy social skills to get well paid positions… but not everyone can do that. The number of positions aren’t there. Plus tech is now the growth sector of the economy, and executives have to be more tech focused to be accepted by the employees they manage. A sociology major probably cannot manage a team of cloud computing sales people at Google.

A good college degree, in a competitive major, is objective measure that someone has work ethics and had done the hard work. It cannot be taken away.

The complaints usually come from people who fear that their social skills won’t be enough anymore. Scaredy mentioned Jewish people being the most academically inclined. For good reasons because education opens door to the professional upper middle class. There was a lot of resentment against Jewish people before, but now they are mostly considered white. Asians are following the same path, and Asians are much, much greater in numbers.

We need to give credit where credit is due. Just look at neighborhoods such as Carmel Valley, Irvine, La Jolla near UTC, etc… Striving academically works.

I believe that were are in a society where objective measures of qualification are more important. We want to quantify everything and input in a database and have an algorithm (designed by a top scientist) give use the answer. I’m sure the algorithm will give more weight to level of education and credit score than peace corps work in Africa…. for credit worthiness. BTW, I wanted to join the peace corps and I love volunteers.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=FlyerInHi]A good college degree, in a competitive major, is objective measure that someone has work ethics and had done the hard work. It cannot be taken away.[/quote]

What makes you think anyone has said anything different?

I have a friend that teaches STEM at a well known university. do you know what their big complaint is? The kids don’t even recognize why she has a problem with plagiarism, copying, etc.

Regarding the tech diversity report. Personally, I hope we can stop counting noses soon. I’ve worked in tech my whole career. I’ve hired many. The orgs I’ve been in, the people I’ve hired, closely resemble those charts.

Why? Simple. That’s who applied for the job. 80% male, yep, more like 90%. Again they applied for the job. If I kept a 1/3rd of my spots open for females, I’d have had them open for ten years while I bribe 7th grade girls to go into STEM and work their way through to college graduation.

Those charts are that way because that’s who applies. That’s who took the degrees in the fields needed. That’s who wants to do that work.

Here’s google’s tech chart. “There isn’t much diversity in ethnicity across these tech teams either. At Google, 60% of tech employees are white.”

If we want to count noses, that’s an interesting title given the country is 63% non-hispanic white and STEM graduates look like this:

Those charts are that way because that’s who applies. That’s who took the courses in the fields needed. That’s who wants to do that work.

Top college admission is like hiring. My question is are we valuing work ethic or are we valuing grinding?

Will your kid have a better chances if they make it into Berkeley STEM program compared to CS Fresno? Yea, I suspect so, I also suspect you’re kid we be just fine if they get into CS Fresno (which looks like a 3.2 gpa and around 500 on each SAT component).

And who knows, maybe your kid will decide to be a next generation sustainable farmer that knows how to feed the world in a climate changed world.

[scaredyclassic]

Funny you should mention that. I told my kid to study farm management…

[carli]

FIH, you say, “A good college degree, in a competitive major, is objective measure that someone has work ethics and had done the hard work. It cannot be taken away.”

True, but that doesn’t paint the full picture. There is so much more to finding an extremely lucrative career, which sounds like your main goal.

Believe me, I’m not knocking a kid or parents who are driven and hardworking, or who have prestigious degrees, and our own family is mainly in that camp. I just don’t think that being a hard worker and joining the race for a top tier school are the same thing. And many parents who have been involved in this with their kids realize it’s better to find the right fit for your kid’s college education than just shoot for the most prestigious school. If the kid is motivated, good stuff happens, but no amount of parental pressure is going to make a kid be financially successful.

Do you have kids who are in the college/pre-college environment? It’s hard to explain the intensity of it if you haven’t experienced it firsthand. Our kids have attended the top performing h.s. in SD County (ranked 5th in CA and 73rd in US according to US News World Report, if I recall correctly), where most are superstars. There are literally dozens of kids in each graduating class who are equally qualified to attend any school their hearts desire. But not all get in. Some don’t even get in to their top 3 or 4 choices. Doesn’t mean they won’t be super financially successful, if that’s what their focus is. Along the way, they’ll be measured by all kinds of gauges, some objective, some not.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=scaredyclassic]Funny you should mention that. I told my kid to study farm management…[/quote]

I’m not really joking about it. That may be the STEM degree of the future.

[scaredyclassic]

[quote=no_such_reality][quote=scaredyclassic]Funny you should mention that. I told my kid to study farm management…[/quote]

I’m not really joking about it. That may be the STEM degree of the future.[/quote]

I’m serious too.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=no_such_reality]

Top college admission is like hiring. My question is are we valuing work ethic or are we valuing grinding?

Will your kid have a better chances if they make it into Berkeley STEM program compared to CS Fresno? Yea, I suspect so, I also suspect you’re kid we be just fine if they get into CS Fresno (which looks like a 3.2 gpa and around 500 on each SAT component).

And who knows, maybe your kid will decide to be a next generation sustainable farmer that knows how to feed the world in a climate changed world.[/quote]

You ask all the right questions. I think your company is very lucky to have you.

My answer is based on society in general. We value famous brands. Famous brands command more money. Everyone knows that and companies use branding as a competitive advantage. Sure, brand doesn’t necessarily mean quality. But in general, it’s a tried and true way of building marketabilty and increasing profits. All else being equal, good branding is always better.

I believe that if a family has to pay $200k extra for good branding, or a child has to compete harder, it’s worth the premium. It’s like a company spending boatloads of money and creativity on marketing, resources that don’t go into research to make the product better.

That’s my marketplace point of view.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=scaredyclassic][quote=no_such_reality][quote=scaredyclassic]Funny you should mention that. I told my kid to study farm management…[/quote]

I’m not really joking about it. That may be the STEM degree of the future.[/quote]

I’m serious too.[/quote]

Farm management from a top school.

[bearishgurl]

Filling out my mail-in ballot now. I’m voting for Greg Conlon to replace Boxer in the US Senate. He will introduce legislation to limit acceptance to non-resident applicants to the UC in favor of creating thousands more seats for qualified residents.

GREG CONLON COMMENTS ON THE FUTURE OF
CALIFORNIA’S HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, March 30, 2016
Contact: Greg Conlon (650)-315-4956

(Palo Alto, CA) – California is taking away an outstanding educational opportunity from some of its best and brightest high school graduates by limiting their access to the University of California system. US News and World Report ranks UC Berkeley and UCLA 20th and 23rd in the nation, yet 30% of their students come from out of state. That amounts to approximately 8,500 students each out of a total of 27,000 to 30,000 students, respectively. While out-of-state tuition costs $36,000 per year, or $23,000 more than in-state tuition, this additional revenue supports only about 6% of UC System’s expenses.

Is this really what we want to do — give away about 17,000 spots a year in these two schools to out-of-state and out-of-nation students and deprive our own top students of this educational opportunity and future high-paying jobs?. My answer is no. The State of California has decreased its funding of the UC System in total from 18% of the State’s general fund in the late ‘70’s to 11 to 12% today. These decreases compare with increases in health and human services, corrections and rehabilitations, and K-12 education from 60% to 80% of the State’s General Fund expenditures. These statistics are available from a Study of Public Education in California by the League of Women Voters of California Education Fund.

Meanwhile other universities that are ranked equal or higher than our two top public universities are charging about $10,000 more per year (average $48,000 per year) in student fees. So not only are we giving away these top spots to non-state students, we are doing it at a discount compared to similar top 20 universities in the nation (see US News and World Report Rankings).

As a candidate for the U. S. Senate, I believe a federal policy regarding issuance of student visas to out-of-nation students can positively address the inequity of educational opportunity for California’s equally qualified best and brightest students. I propose that out-of-nation students (who are primarily from China and India) be subjected to requirements similar to those currently imposed for issuance of “Green Cards” for foreign persons to obtain work visas. My recommendation is that each University would have to demonstrate that there are no equally qualified in-state students, based on test scores and GPA, who could fill the available slot for admission. Only then would student visas be issued. While the loss of higher tuition revenue would have an impact, I believe we can find ways to make up much of the lost revenue. First the California legislature should try to increase appropriations for the UC System and reverse the trend of the downward spiral. Second, based on my experience in both the private sector as a businessman and CPA and my public sector experience as President of the California PUC, it is not out of the question to find some savings to recover some of the 6% in the University System expenditures.

This is not an easy problem to solve but by addressing this issue we can increase the chances for California’s best and brightest to receive a high-quality education and gain access to future high-paying jobs right here at home. If you agree with my recommendations and comments please support my campaign with a donation so I can win my election and try to implement these recommendation.

http://www.gregconlon.com/california_s_credit_rating

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=carli]
True, but that doesn’t paint the full picture. There is so much more to finding an extremely lucrative career, which sounds like your main goal.
[/quote]

I’m not speaking for me, but I’m trying to understand the drive to excel academically and getting into the top schools.

The motivation is not to become rich. It’s insurance for having a respectable, well paid establishment position that affords the good things in life. It’s not a guarantee, but insurance. It also becomes the base on which to build.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=no_such_reality] . . .
And not to pick on countries however don’t want to see us go here.

Riot after teachers try to stop pupils cheating

Or here

Test cheating stirs outage, then people start dying

Which is seems like we are.[/quote]NSR, I read these two articles. They are unfortunate, but of course you understand that it is not the problem of CA resident UC applicants that the educational systems in the countries which supply their two largest groups of “foreign competition” for slots in the UC are “corrupt.”

These countries need to focus on cleaning up the graft in their own backyards. It’s not our problem. We citizens of the US and residents of CA don’t owe prospective applicants to the UC from foreign countries a damn thing. End of story.

[carli]

FIH, you say, “We value famous brands. Famous brands command more money. Everyone knows that and companies use branding as a competitive advantage. Sure, brand doesn’t necessarily mean quality. But in general, it’s a tried and true way of building marketabilty and increasing profits. All else being equal, good branding is always better.
I believe that if a family has to pay $200k extra for good branding, or a child has to compete harder, it’s worth the premium. It’s like a company spending boatloads of money and creativity on marketing, resources that don’t go into research to make the product better. That’s my marketplace point of view.”

OK, let’s take your branding/marketplace analogy one step further. Say there’s a top ice cream brand, like Ben & Jerry’s, available for sale. Is Ben & Jerry’s brand worth the same to, for example, GE as it is to Kraft Foods? Each potential buyer would look at its own balance sheet and see if they can afford the acquisition, how it would fit into their long term goals, product portfolio, what their perceived ROI is, etc. So maybe Kraft Foods sees Ben & Jerry’s as an outstanding acquisition and is willing to spend almost anything for the brand because it fits with their business model, they like the ROI, etc, but GE looks at the brand and takes a pass, as it doesn’t fit with their business model, mission, they think the ROI stinks, etc.

Just because something has excellent branding doesn’t mean it’s automatically the best fit or choice for everyone.

Taking it a bit further, what if a company knows it needs to make multiple acquisitions in order to thrive (i.e. a family needs to send 3-4 kids to college? You said it’s worth $200,000 to make a choice based on brand, but what if it’s 3-4 x that amount for multiple kids?) In that case, most companies would realize they shouldn’t choose the top brand but instead should spread their limited resources out over 3-4 lower tier ice cream brands (Are Dreyers, Edy’s and Breyers available? If so, they probably have a better ROI than Ben & Jerry’s, ha!)

I could go on and on with your marketplace analogy, but you get the gist. With the college education buying decision, the “all things being equal, pick the best brand” idea does not work for many reasons. First is that things are never all equal. Too many nuances per kid, per school, per family, per finances, etc.

[bearishgurl]

Here’s a good debate with the five “top” candidates vying for Boxer’s seat on the ultra-crowded (34 + write in) CA ballot.

Aired from Stockton on 4/25/16. Conlon is not there as he announced his candidacy late in the game.

1 hour, 22 mins. Going to finish watching it later tonight.

[Essbee]

Fascinating comments, everyone.

I do know a Vietnamese-American guy from my college (Ivy League) who is a high level I-banker of some sort on Wall Street… He had no connections; parents were immigrants and he grew up here in lovely Lakeside!

I am a “white” and had nothing but generations upon generations of farmers in my background. Some immigrated in the late 1800s/early 1900s, some much earlier. One grandfather was a police officer, one was in sales. Grandmothers were housewives; later one grandmother was a secretary and one worked in a department store. My parents went to college, but my father is a mostly unemployed engineer and mother an admin assistant type. So, I don’t think I had a fast track to anything… yet somehow I made it into the Ivy League, medicine, etc.

My husband had a similar pink collar type background (parents RN and teacher). He and I paid for all of our own wedding expenses, house down payment, etc etc. I am proud of this, but it wasn’t easy. Never got to consider something like “a gap year” or even a summer trip to backpack around Europe during college. Everything has been focused on going to the next step.

I guess I never really considered many careers besides medicine or science as those were the only fields that seemed more focused on merit than connections as a condition of employment.

It’s strange to say, but I often feel like I have more in common with people who are (mostly) 2nd generation Asian/Indians than with most other white people that I meet.

And I sometimes worry about my very blonde children being not taken as seriously in the classroom as their Asian/Indian peers. :/ I feel that they have to “prove” themselves, too.

Argh. It’s all interesting, though.

[flyer]

Personally, I think most parents are doing everything they can to try to ensure the best path for their children’s future, but the reality is that, with or without extreme performance pressure applied, kids may or may not get the career/life of their dreams in the real world for many reasons.

Things turned out well for our kids, as they have for many others, and their educational pursuits paid off, but the fact that the wealth gap continues to widen, imo, is proof that there is much more to financial success (for the point of this discussion I’m not referring to other types of success, although, ideally, we meld all types of success to form our lives) than solely depending upon a premium education as a guarantee of success.

[Author]

Posts