The dire climate of CA public university admissions for freshmen

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=no_such_reality]The plan you’re promoting is the equivalent of a commuting plan that says I’m going to drive through the valley and west side of LA at rush hour and out compete the car next to me to merge in front of them. It’ll work but it’s the educational equivalent of planning to live way out in the burgs and slog the commute daily. My plan is to helpy kid figure out how not to have to live on the 101.

Kids today do not have the luxury that I did, Study a reasonable amount get good grades, play three sports, etc. today. They’re forced to specialize early and grind many hours to stay competitive. some kids are inclined to it, some are academically gifted, most are simply slogging massive hours

Is the marginal trade off worth it?

As for the AA, that would be couple layers “down” as in Sr. Tech reporting to a manager who reported to me.

It’s the same as the credential problem that is plaguing tech at the moment. There is an increased reliance on creds because incompetent managers can’t figure out if they know it and competent managers need to sort through the Bs and give the recruiter a short cut[/quote]

With a good degree from a good university you have a better chance of landing a job in a professional middle class that makes sure everything runs properly. Maybe its just going through the motions. But much of life is just that. I’m not saying it’s desirable, but society desires certain things and we must feed the beast.

Tech is maturing so it’s doing things more establisment and more structured.

Also with a good degree, you’re more likely to make more money so you can live closer to work. Yes, academic competition can be grueling to most kids, and maybe it’s not healthy. But there are sacrifices we must make.

Academic competition is like competing for sports. You get grades and degrees, like trophies or sports stats. Bragging rights and glory. Why not, if you can? BTW, sports is also a lot more competitive than in the past.

There are lots of things in life you can sit out because they are too stressful. Like why work and buy an expensive house to compete with everybody else? You can take it easy living more modestly. But you won’t get certain rewards society offers. If you don’t care, then you’re good. Buddhism says people don’t have power over you if you don’t desire what they have to offer. It then becomes much easier to find happiness from within.

[njtosd]

[quote=bobby]

yes. creativity is important. more so than rote memorization of formulas.
I think most people going into “creative majors” means that they want to have fun in such thing as French renaissance poetry. sure, it’s creative but it has little use in the real world.
being creative doesn’t mean not productive but that’s the euphemism for that word nowadays.[/quote]

Reading French Renaissance poetry isn’t any more creative than reading Go Dog Go. WRITING GOOD poetry is creative. The root of the word is CREATE. What does one create when one reads poetry? People who read such things enjoy the creative works of others, just as my children enjoy the inventiveness of whoever conceived of and designed the device they have their eyes glued to. They are mere hangers on – although my children will undoubtably in the future invent something wonderful like cold fusion and/or nylons that don’t run ;).

I was interested to see in one of the articles about Prince that he received some backing when he was in high school from a guy (can’t remember who) in the music biz. This guy was impressed not only by his sound his sound but also his WORK ETHIC. There are billions of people with ideas, but relatively few who will put in the work to bring their ideas into being.

Accountability is key. Accomplishing something identifiable is required.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=FlyerInHi]
Academic competition is like competing for sports. You get grades and degrees, like trophies or sports stats. Bragging rights and glory. Why not, if you can? BTW, sports is also a lot more competitive than in the past.
[/quote]

For 99.99%, they’ll be just as fine with a regular college degree. They’ll get in. Sports highlights my point. The kids are starting to have to commit like they’re going to train for the Olympics to just play highschool sports.

Texas A&M has just as many Fortune 100 CEOs as Harvard. It also has an average GPA 3.5, SAT scores of 1800 and a 71% admission rate.

The branding mantra of fighting to get into Ivy or ‘top tier’ is the big lie, just like the lie of sports.

[carli]

[quote=no_such_reality][quote=FlyerInHi]
Academic competition is like competing for sports. You get grades and degrees, like trophies or sports stats. Bragging rights and glory. Why not, if you can? BTW, sports is also a lot more competitive than in the past.
[/quote]

For 99.99%, they’ll be just as fine with a regular college degree. They’ll get in. Sports highlights my point. The kids are starting to have to commit like they’re going to train for the Olympics to just play highschool sports.

Texas A&M has just as many Fortune 100 CEOs as Harvard. It also has any average GPA 3.5, SAT scores of 1800 and a 71% admission rate.

The branding mantra of fighting to get into Ivy or ‘top tier’ is the big lie, just like the lie of sports.[/quote]

I completely agree with this. For many kids these days, high school is rigorous and competitive enough without striving for admission to a top tier school. Unless admission comes as a natural byproduct of the kid’s skills and accomplishments (even then, it’s like winning the lottery), why add unrealistic pressure to get there? Kids should know that their future success is not dependent on a degree from one of these schools. Not only is it not dependent, their future success will be unaffected by their choice of a top tier vs. middle tier school. It is affected by many other factors, such as drive and career track record, but not where the degree comes from.

FIH, if you’re still unconvinced, try reading Frank Bruni’s book, “Where You Go is Not Who You’ll Be” about this very topic.

[FlyerInHi]

Carli, I sorta agree with you and NSR.
You’re saying that competing for the top school may not be worth the tradeoffs. I can accept that.

But there are so many things in life that require tradeoffs. Like saving to live in the best neighborhoods, or driving expensive cars, or buying branded luxury products. Do those things define who you are?

If you can go to a top school, then why not? Because you can. I don’t see anything wrong with making that a priority. I have the inkling that some people don’t like the hyper competitiveness because they cannot or don’t want to participate. They are welcomed to sit it out.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=carli][quote=no_such_reality][quote=FlyerInHi]
Academic competition is like competing for sports. You get grades and degrees, like trophies or sports stats. Bragging rights and glory. Why not, if you can? BTW, sports is also a lot more competitive than in the past.
[/quote]

For 99.99%, they’ll be just as fine with a regular college degree. They’ll get in. Sports highlights my point. The kids are starting to have to commit like they’re going to train for the Olympics to just play highschool sports.

Texas A&M has just as many Fortune 100 CEOs as Harvard. It also has any average GPA 3.5, SAT scores of 1800 and a 71% admission rate.

The branding mantra of fighting to get into Ivy or ‘top tier’ is the big lie, just like the lie of sports.[/quote]

I completely agree with this. For many kids these days, high school is rigorous and competitive enough without striving for admission to a top tier school. Unless admission comes as a natural byproduct of the kid’s skills and accomplishments (even then, it’s like winning the lottery), why add unrealistic pressure to get there? Kids should know that their future success is not dependent on a degree from one of these schools. Not only is it not dependent, their future success will be unaffected by their choice of a top tier vs. middle tier school. It is affected by many other factors, such as drive and career track record, but not where the degree comes from.

FIH, if you’re still unconvinced, try reading Frank Bruni’s book, “Where You Go is Not Who You’ll Be” about this very topic.[/quote]I looked up the book on Amazon just now and glanced over the reviews and agree that HS students shouldn’t endeavor to apply to expensive private colleges (incl Ivies), especially those who only admit 5-7% of freshman applicants. Unless their families are VERY well-heeled to have saved a substantial college fund for them or they have a reliable, iron-clad benefactor for the long haul, it’s not worth taking out a ridiculous sum of student debt (over $100K, which will take them decades to pay off) for a college freshman straight out of HS to attend a “name-brand” school. I feel the expensive private schools often entice many freshman applicants whom they decide to admit with “full ride” scholarships for their freshman year only, leaving them footing the HUGE tuition bills in the following years after they have already accepted their admission offers, matriculated into the student body and settled in. This puts these students (who can’t afford to continue there without copious amounts of financial aid) in the position of having to leave the institution after freshman year and spend the next 6+ months (while NOT a student or while a JC/CC student living at home) applying to public universities that they and their families can actually afford IF they shun student loans (as 99% of them should, IMO). In CA, these private-school “financial castoffs” won’t likely be able to be admitted to any CA public university as a sophomore and will be told to finish up their GE’s at a CC and reapply as a transferring-in junior (spend at least a year at CC).

Folks, this is why it is SO IMPORTANT to get your HS senior on board to committing to the RIGHT university for them (public if cost for 4 years is an issue) which they can reasonably finish their degree program and graduate from! It is way harder to get admitted to a public university in CA as a transferring in junior and next to impossible to transfer in as a sophomore or senior. Once your HS senior enrolls in any college (even CC), it is a different ballgame than HS and their HS GPA will most likely go down, making them less desirable to any 4-year university as a transfer student. It’s better to use any trick in the book, by hook or crook, whatever it takes, to get accepted to university as a freshman. Once in and matriculating, performing above the level of academic probation and satisfactorily progressing in their degree program (ie, declared a major upon applying and following their 4-year plan religiously) as well as NOT requesting financial aid from the university itself, then they get to stay. At that point, it doesn’t matter how great the credentials are of the thousands of (later) HS and CC applicants to that particular campus who are ready, willing and able to take a matriculating student’s seat. The vast majority will be turned down for admission due to impaction.

Parents and their HS student need to decide together where their student can realistically afford to attend and successfully finish a degree program while the student is still a HS junior. By the time their senior year rolls around, the deadline for admission as a freshman at a CA public university (11/30) is fast approaching and they should have already visited the campuses of their interest during the summer, while the student had more time to do so.

Fortunately, me and my kid’s other parent (often with kids in tow) have traveled extensively by road all over the state (I attended elem school in Alameda County and my kid’s dad has a few relatives in Alameda and Santa Clara Counties) and so we already knew what the various lifestyles and typical weather and traffic were like in other CA locales to be able to explain this to our kids (who were born and raised in SD Co). My kids were admitted into their respective CSU campuses with HS GPA’s of just 2.9 to 3.3 and SAT scores of 980 to 1380 (not counting essay portion). BUT, instead of buckling down and studying hard in the many AP classes offered to them in HS (they only successfully passed one AP exam each) they spent their MS and HS years on stage touring HS’s throughout SD County and the entire state (with several National competitions in other states) nearly year-round in show choir after studying dance since the age of 3-6. My youngest kid did NOT have anywhere near the avg GPA OR SAT score of an average out-of-area freshman admitted to the campus in which they accepted their admission offer. (I was shocked when I found out they were admitted, albeit in “late rolling admissions”). However, they DID have other things going for them that this campus had been trying to recruit.

My kids are mostly “city people” who are heavily gregarious to the point of being “social animals.” That’s how their dad is (more than me :=0). In addition, they are self-promoting “relationship builders” and “masters of the `selfie'” . . . lol. They are the type of kids who do best at a large urban campus with a Greek presence and plenty of opportunities for on and off-campus assimilation and employment.

My kid(s) are successful and self-supporting (in a more expensive locale than SD County) and I believe my youngest will be as well, as soon as they are able to obtain an internship in their field and graduate with a job offer in hand, using connections they made while in college as a springboard to the “real world.”

I’m not so sure that a college graduate’s name of institution or GPA matters much in non-stem careers. I think what DOES matter is making connections helpful to getting your foot in the door at your first job in your field while in college and being able to “properly handle by yourself” meetings with important connections set up FOR you by academic advisors or relatives. I think that being able to think on your feet, ability to “talk it until you walk it” as well as grooming, dress and demeanor is just as important if not moreso when it comes to landing your first FT job out of college.

For example, when you look at all the notable journalists who graduated from SFSU’s “cinema” and “journalism” depts (nka the Dept of Film, Television and New Media Production), you will see dozens of recognizable names on the list:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_San_Francisco_State_University_people

Several programs offered by CSU campuses (as well as ROI by campus) have been rated higher than UC campuses (excepting Cal) by Forbes and US Newsweek in the past decade which boast of hundreds of notable alumni in entertainment and politics as well as ALL employment fields:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:California_State_University-related_lists

The CSU is definitely a “better fit” for some students than the UC in different ways. A bachelor degree from a CSU is by no means “inferior” to a UC degree (of like kind and/or in the same general field) to an employer. The endless striving among CA parents attempting to ensure their MS/HS student qualifies for at least UC admission has just turned out to be a lot of effort and strife for naught as we have learned from the recent state auditor’s report showing that since Fall 2011, the UC admitted non-residents with lower creds than CA residents … for the sole purpose of getting their huge tuition premiums for their coffers.

If your student attends a large, CA flagship U and graduates 4 years later with a 3.5 or higher GPA, yet meets few people in college, doesn’t hold a job and/or internship while in college and generally keeps to themselves on campus, I don’t see how they are going to be able to easily get out there and compete with all their “social-animal brethren” in the “real world” for jobs in their field. That is, if the job they trained for is NOT a job typically performed in solitude. (Carli, I’m not saying this describes your soon-to-be graduate.) I had a kid who declared a social work major at SFSU upon acceptance but it was terribly impacted to the point of there being little chance to get admitted into the program so they decided early on (freshman year) to change their major to business which worked out great for them.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=FlyerInHi]Carli, I sorta agree with you and NSR.
You’re saying that competing for the top school may not be worth the tradeoffs. I can accept that.

But there are so many things in life that require tradeoffs. Like saving to live in the best neighborhoods, or driving expensive cars, or buying branded luxury products. Do those things define who you are?

If you can go to a top school, then why not? Because you can. I don’t see anything wrong with making that a priority. I have the inkling that some people don’t like the hyper competitiveness because they cannot or don’t want to participate. They are welcomed to sit it out.[/quote]FIH, just because your (CA HS student) kid elects to “sit out” the “hyper competitiveness” and just take the necessary A-G reqs to get admitted to CSU while in HS doesn’t mean they will not be successful in life. Nothing could be further from the truth. Personal attributes (and sometimes innate talent) are more important in a lot of “real world” occupations than name of institution on the job applicants college diploma and/or their college GPA (within reason).

I agree that applying to a top (private) university or college is a good idea for the qualified HS student IF they have a reliable and able benefactor for the long haul. Otherwise, it’s pure folly. Holding a large student loan is horrendous and can easily impair the former student’s financial life in adulthood for decades … even for a lifetime! Better to stay far away from them and apply to institutions which you know you can afford NOW and for the long haul. Yes, even if you have to work 20+ hours per week while attending university and attend classes during the summers in order to graduate on time.

[FlyerInHi]

BG, success is in the eyes of the beholder.

If you believe in the markets, people make certain choices because they are more valuable.

the standards are now higher, and it up to us to keep up. I read that in Korea people spend so much money on their kids’ education. Here, we spend money on big houses and cars. Different priorities.

I sense resentment from some people who think we work hard enough already, no need to push that on our kids. The truth is that someone will always work harder and better than us. We can keep up or sit out.

[FlyerInHi]

BG, you proudly stated your brethren in flyover country have paid off houses, cabins, trucks, SUVs, expensive toys, etc…
Why would the kids need any loans? A top education by comparison is not expensive — just the equivalent of a few toys.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=FlyerInHi]BG, you proudly stated your brethren in flyover country have paid off houses, cabins, trucks, SUVs, expensive toys, etc…
Why would the kids need any loans? A top education by comparison is not expensive — just the equivalent of a few toys.[/quote]It’s NOT “the equivalent of a few toys” for even one kid’s private college education for four years, much less for a family with 3-4 kids in the pipeline. All those “toys” you’re talking about here aren’t worth on the resale market what you think they are.

If these flyover-country HS seniors DO apply to a CA public university (because their parents can afford non-resident tuition), of course they are going to apply to a campuses with coastal locations as their 1st, 2nd and 3rd choices. There would be no reason for them to choose a CA campus in an “armpit” location. If they wanted that, they could apply to public universities in their own states and pay far less tuition :=0

This is a large part of the reason why degree programs in CA public university campuses in or near coastal locations are so impacted.

Foreign applicants are less picky about location and more interested in applying to particular CA campuses which have programs they want to pursue.

[FlyerInHi]

BG, I’m not talking resale value of the toys. I’m talking prioritizing education over toys. All the toys over 2 decades can pay for a top education.

Lots of the foreign students you don’t like coming here… The vast majority of those families are not filthy rich; they just want upper middle class jobs for their kids. . Their families prioritize, and education is top priority. Same goes for many American families who value education.

Families who value education want the top schools, private and public. It’s not just the UC campuses, but UT Austin, university of Michigan, etc… It’s like people who like trucks want the badass trucks, or people who like American Harleys, or sports cars….whatever. We want the best brands and are willing to pay (money, time or effort)

[bearishgurl]

[quote=FlyerInHi]BG, I’m not talking resale value of the toys. I’m talking prioritizing education over toys. All the toys over 2 decades can pay for a top education.

Lots of the foreign students you don’t like coming here… The vast majority of those families are not filthy rich; they just want upper middle class jobs for their kids. . Their families prioritize, and education is top priority. Same goes for many American families who value education.

Families who value education want the top schools, private and public. It’s not just the UC campuses, but UT Austin, university of Michigan, etc… It’s like people who like trucks want the badass trucks, or people who like American Harleys, or sports cars….whatever. We want the best brands and are willing to pay (money, time or effort)[/quote]FIH, it’s pretty clear here that you have no idea how much it costs to raise kids today …. anywhere in the country. Sending 3-4 kids to a top university (public OR private) for 4 years each could easily set the parents back ~$1M … assuming they had it lying around or could get their hands on that much money.

The vast majority of parents haven’t even saved 1/20th of that for their kids’ college. It’s not because they spent it on “toys.” It’s because they have been barely making enough to keep their families afloat for the past decade-plus with both of them working FT (ESP in coastal CA).

Hence, Bernie’s “message” resonating with millenials and joe and jane 6p which you are so much in agreement with :=0

[no_such_reality]

[quote=FlyerInHi]BG, I’m not talking resale value of the toys. I’m talking prioritizing education over toys. All the toys over 2 decades can pay for a top education.

Lots of the foreign students you don’t like coming here… The vast majority of those families are not filthy rich; they just want upper middle class jobs for their kids. . Their families prioritize, and education is top priority. Same goes for many American families who value education.

Families who value education want the top schools, private and public. It’s not just the UC campuses, but UT Austin, university of Michigan, etc… It’s like people who like trucks want the badass trucks, or people who like American Harleys, or sports cars….whatever. We want the best brands and are willing to pay (money, time or effort)[/quote]

If you’re willing to pay then why are we funding it with tax dollars? If they’re willing to pay then let’s treat it like the business it is and reap a profit from the decades of investment the tax payers have made and channel the funding back to provide for the masses.

And I agree, I do have some resentment about the increased competition. But it isn’t about having to compete, it’s about having to compete where Lance Armstrong doping is the norm. Pop Warner coaches getting suspended over bounty programs for knocking players out, parents doing their kids mission project. And the use of tutors and kumon when it gets so prevalent that teachers adjust their curriculum assuming you are have at least one.

So yes, Korea spends more on education. Saudi Arabia spends a fortune wearing burkas and enforcing social norms, surely you’re not saying since they’re spending more that’s a model we should strive towards?

[bearishgurl]

[quote=no_such_reality][quote=FlyerInHi]BG, I’m not talking resale value of the toys. I’m talking prioritizing education over toys. All the toys over 2 decades can pay for a top education.

Lots of the foreign students you don’t like coming here… The vast majority of those families are not filthy rich; they just want upper middle class jobs for their kids. . Their families prioritize, and education is top priority. Same goes for many American families who value education.

Families who value education want the top schools, private and public. It’s not just the UC campuses, but UT Austin, university of Michigan, etc… It’s like people who like trucks want the badass trucks, or people who like American Harleys, or sports cars….whatever. We want the best brands and are willing to pay (money, time or effort)[/quote]

If you’re willing to pay then why are we funding it with tax dollars? If they’re willing to pay then let’s treat it like the business it is and real a profit. From the decades of investment te tax payers have made and channel than funding back to provide for the masses.

And I agree, I do have some resentment about the increased competition. But it isn’t about having to compete, it’s about having to compete where Lance Armstrong doping is the norm. Pop Warner coaches getting suspended over bounty programs for knocking players out, parents doing their kids mission project. And the use of tutors and kimono when it gets so prevalent that teachers adjust their curriculum assuming you are have at least one.[/quote]Agree NSR. My main beef with non-residents taking up CA university slots which should go to residents is that the vast majority of them never paid any taxes in this state (which, in turn, fund our university systems). They’re taking up thousands upon thousands of slots for resident applicants who didn’t get admitted simply because they pay less tuition. And at the UC, non-residents have been admitted in droves since 2011 under less stringest criteria than residents, according to the recent state audit.

If CA’s graduating HS seniors cannot get admitted to public university right out of HS (preferably one within commuting distance to parents’ homes), then they have no other choice but CC (for a publicly-funded college education). And completion of a transfer degree at a CC no longer guarantees admission to CSU/UC as a junior (esp a campus within commuting distance of their parents’ homes) …. the reason being that the bar of entry is now nearly 4.0 GPA (CC overall GPA) for locally-based, transferring-in juniors (at least to SDSU). Of course, it may very well be less for campuses located in CA’s “armpit” and its rural areas which don’t have a HUGE body of incoming freshmen from HS districts in their immediate areas which they offered admission guarantees to and they ALSO don’t have a HUGE amount of non-resident apps to consider (both from prospective freshman and transfers).

It’s not right to leave prospective qualified CA HS graduate-applicants swinging in the wind (rejected for admission) with only CC choices all the while admitting non-residents in their place! CA University systems are supposed to exist, first and foremost, for CA residents. Every qualified HS graduate who desires a public university education in their own damn state is entitled to one. I don’t care what anyone else thinks.

I have no problem with CA private institutions (ie Stanford, USC, the Claremont Colleges, Cal Tech, Pepperdine, etc selling ALL of their seats to the highest bidder from in state, OOS, OOC or even from Mars! That’s their perogative as CA taxpayers are not funding them in any way, shape or form.

[no_such_reality]

I’m perfectly fine with foreign students taking spots, especially if they’re paying true cost.

For a CA resident, UCLA tuition & fees is only $13K. Books add another $1500. The rest of expense is just living in LA.

Out of Staters pay another $26K.

To me, its much like the buy your citizenship immigration. AKA EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program. Just another pay to play program.

But if we want to reap, then reap, lets really go get the best and brightest of the world and keep them here when they graduate.

[Author]

Posts