[bearishgurl]

Esco, your chart from whatever document you say it came from says that 23% (or 6108 of UCSD’s 26,590 enrolled undergrads) in (Fall) 2015 were from OOS and OOC. 17% (or 4407 students) were from San Diego County. 36% (or 9478 students) were from LA, Orange, Ventura and IE Counties. 16% (or 4343 students) were from SF Bay area counties. 8% (or 2254 students) in (Fall) 2015 were from CA (other) including Sac area and rural/agricultural CA (totaling 100%).

There is something wrong with that picture.

SF Bay area residents have SFSU, SJSU, UCB (Cal flagship), CSUEB (with a HUGE Concord extension)! That’s 4+ public campuses serving their home county undergrads PLUS proximity of commuting to UCD and CSU Sonoma to some Solano and Contra Costa County residents. Yet, 4407 of the residents of these counties were attending UCSD in Fall 2015.

LA/OC and IE residents have 9 public universities to choose from: CSULB (flagship), CSUF, CSUDH, CPP, CSUSB, CSUN and UCI, UCLA (flagship) and UCR. Yet, 9,478 of the residents of these counties were attending UCSD in Fall 2015.

Sac Delta and rural CA residents attending UCSD (2254 of them in Fall 2015) have campuses closer to their home base than UCSD, yet they are enrolled at UCSD. I DO understand that the public campus(es) closer to their homes may not have the degree programs they are seeking. I know how the CSU and UC application processes work and that the applicants must list a 1st, 2nd, 3rd and even 4th thru 6th choice to increase their odds of being admitted. But it shouldn’t have to be this way for qualified CA-resident applicants! Although my own kids were able to attend CA public universities out of county (only because they couldn’t get admitted to SDSU and weren’t qualified to apply to UC) and we were able to pay for their housing, the vast majority of families can’t afford housing! It’s really tough for these kids and I hear a lot of sob stories, including kids with Associate Degrees, one who graduated on the Dean’s list at SWC (a CC) who can’t seem to get admitted as a junior at SDSU and UCSD … the reason being that they are giving too many slots away to out of county, out of state and out of country applicants (both freshman and junior slots)! It’s morally reprehensible. Qualified applicants who are American citizens or who have legal citizenship and completed their K-12 education in CA public schools deserve to be given a fair shake in the application process of their home county public university BEFORE accepting a slot at a distant campus from their home. If they turn it down in favor of accepting an offer of admission from a distant campus, fine. But it should be OFFERED to them.

I can think of 6-8 other states off-hand where this would never happen. No way, no how … hell, no! Their OWN QUALIFIED IN-STATE HS GRADUATES come FIRST in the freshman selection process at their public universities. PERIOD. ESPecially the rural HS graduates who may have even been bussed to ONE K-12 public school all of their lives … with no access to AP offerings! It’s only fair and that’s the way it should be.

The Regents and the CSU Board are corrupt. The CA Education Code sections addressing the “selection process” of students at UC/CSU needs to be gone over with a fine-toothed comb by an enterprising legislator, gutted and replaced with very specific language on how the selection process should go, step by step and placed before the Legislature ASAP. The “vague” sections giving the Regents and the Board way too much leeway in admissions need to be shored up pronto. We have sold most of our Native Cali young people (fresh out of HS) down the river in the past ten years and the results are not pretty.

In the absence of law stating otherwise, the Regents and the Board will continue to do whatever they please. And our kids will continue to flail around working for $2 over minimum wage at Pep Boys at age 30 while living with mom and/or dad with their (now 10-year old) worthless Associate Degree they earned at CC when they were “following all the rules laid out for them to get admitted to University.”

[bearishgurl]

[quote=poorgradstudent]Companies who donate money to candidates love H1B visas.

End of the day, H1B visas don’t affect that many American workers, and they people they do affect can still find jobs. It’s not the same as a factory being shut down and workers in a city not being able to find anything close to as good.

If Trump does go after H1B visas it will be more theater than policy based. The people who elected him care a lot more about factory work and Mexican laborers than they do visiting Engineers and Computer Programmers.[/quote]I DO think there are engineers and computer programmers living in flyover America who voted for Trump. However, they can’t afford to live in or near SV (San Mateo and Santa Clara, CA) or in SD County to take a tech job in coastal CA so the H1B hires in these areas won’t affect them.

I disagree that all Trump supporters in flyover America were factory workers and miners before their employers closed up shop. They were from all walks of life, including medical and legal professionals and teachers/school administrators, as well as Federal, state and local govm’t personnel and law enforcement. And I think Trump supporters are beyond tired of hearing that they have all been pigeonholed into the same (deplorable) little boxes by the (sore-loser type) liberal set.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=spdrun]Cite?[/quote]You are welcome to pm me for it if you want to know :=0

[bearishgurl]

[quote=spdrun] . . . Texas is the only state that allows 85 mph.[/quote]Well, shades of Ozona and the giant, wayward tumbleweed! :=] It’s been awhile since I’ve been on that route and what I remember of it was a lot of senior citizen female drivers (ALL Texans) driving 100 mph all by themselves in their YUGE American luxury sedans, lol …..

[bearishgurl]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=spdrun]Utah was never 85 mph. They went from 75 to 80 mph in the past few years and are actually looking at speed limit increases . . . [/quote]

Until about fall of 2013, it was 85 mph on I-70 in southern UT.[/quote]

[bearishgurl]

[quote=spdrun]Utah was never 85 mph. They went from 75 to 80 mph in the past few years and are actually looking at speed limit increases.

Texas is the only state that allows 85 mph.[/quote]

Until about fall of 2013, it was 85 mph on I-70 in southern UT.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=FlyerInHi]The death rates in middle America are going up.
Give tnem more meth, OxyContin, booze. alcohol, guns. That should take care of it.
Oh, higher speed limits too. I’m all for dismantling Federal mandates.[/quote]UT had a speed limit on its interstates of 85 mph for over 12 years and had to lower it to 80 mph because their (mostly out-of-state) motorists were burning up their tires and having blowouts on their straightaways on their many 100+ degree days. When approaching cities and towns, it has now been reduced to 75 mph where speed traps are always present on the overpasses :=0

Oh, I and I’m acquainted with plenty of “alcoholics” right here in SD County. There is no need to hit the road to find them … they’re all over the place.

And NV (FIH’s “home state”) is teeming with alcoholics … everywhere. And local Clark County Trump campaign volunteers told me when I was there the weekend before last that they are glad their kids are grown because the public schools suck there …. everywhere. Apparently, meth (and even heroin) is for sale in all of them (secondary schools). Some of these people were SoCal transplants and regret moving there … but cannot afford to move back now.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=spdrun]Funny thing: being of Eastern European origin, I’ve dated/got along with very few Eastern European women. I’ve met more Latinas and West Indians whom I’ve clicked with, starting in high school.[/quote]

The Melania type is really not me. I prefer more educated.

I just mentioned her because of Trump. Actually I know a few Eastern Europeans who are very educated. They think Melania is an empty head. Plenty is more educated all over the world.

Anyway if I wanted to reproduce, I’d choose someone with a advanced university education. . And I agree scaredy; marriage should be estate planning accretive to be worth it.[/quote]Education level attained has nothing to do with one’s genes.

[bearishgurl]

The link in the preceding post can be found on page 2 or page 6 of the thread, depending on how you can your Pigg site set up.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Escoguy]bg,

before you make a statement that someone is wrong, please do some basic research as hard data is not difficult to get:

http://studentresearch.ucsd.edu/_files/stats-data/enroll/ughome.pdf

18% are international and 5% are out of state

Please take this the right way but 23% isn’t so unreasonable given it was just 8% 10 years ago.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not really for or against foreign students. I’m just pointing out today’s reality and the impact on real estate. I have met a few of them and they enjoy being here and plan to stay if possible.

If they do stay, then the likelihood of a significant price drop is lower.[/quote]Esco, I can’t discern where your page of stats is coming from but assuming those figures are true, how is it that it “isn’t unreasonable” that out of state admissions have gone up at UCSD 198% from 2005 to 2015 and out of country admissions have gone up 684% while San Diego County resident admissions have gone down 5% in the same time frame? I don’t know how old your kids are but do you want them to slave away in HS to get all the requirements to be admitted to UCSD PLUS achieve an overall GPA of over 4.0 to be admitted to UCSD under today’s standards and then get turned down as freshmen applicants in favor of (often lesser-qualified) OOS and OOC applicants?

Do you have any idea how much (required) on-campus housing costs in CA for out-of-area freshmen at a CA public university? Try ~$1500 month each to share a 4-person, 1000 sf unit for nine months (incl utilities) and then your student will be forced to move out in one day (1-2 days before senior graduation). How about off-campus housing? In eastern Los Angeles County, it costs approx $1125 month for an older 1 bdrm apt in an established area (not incl utilities). $1700 month for a shared 2-bdrm apt in the same area (not incl utilities). ~$650 month each (incl utilities) to share a smallish 4 bdrm condo with 3 other students, where only two students can park in the garage and the others must park off the compound (in the street, and remember to move their vehicles on “street sweeping” days). If they get off work after midnight, they must often walk five minutes or more to their unit. And it costs up to $1000 month each (incl utilities and depending on bdrm size) to rent a 4-5 bdrm house with 3-4 other students. Double these rent amounts for similarly-situated units/houses near LA Westside public universities such as UCLA and CSULB or OC coastal campuses such as UCI or SF East Bay campuses such as CSUEB (Hayward). Double and a half these amounts for SF Peninsula public universities such as SFSU and SJSU. In all cases, a one-year lease is mandatory, regardless if your kid stays in the area for summer classes … or not. The vast majority of CA families can’t afford out-of-county housing for their student to attend university (unless they have relatives in the area of the campus willing to put them up for 2-4 years).

UCSD has actually been admitting more than TWICE as many students from LA County as they have been admitting from SD County! All the while many qualified SD County HS graduates who didn’t make it into UCSD or even SDSU are languishing for YEARS in CC and graduating with a “Associate Degrees of Transfer” whilst being again turned down as a Junior applicant to their home-county public universities and thus thrust out into the retail and hospitality work market with a virtually worthless degree (because it was designed for just ONE purpose … CA public university admission for which they can’t get admitted to without paying many thousands per year to live somewhere else).

The Regents and the CSU Board doesn’t owe these coddled OOS and OOC applicants a damn thing. Of course everyone wants to live in SD and wants to stay! But this isn’t the problem of the Native San Diegan HS graduate who can’t get into UCSD, SDSU or CSUSM because an OOS/OOC applicant who had lesser credentials took their seat!

Esco, don’t you think that qualified local students should have the first shot at admission to their CA home county universities so they can live at home for “free” and complete their bachelor’s degrees? I wouldn’t be surprised if the Regents are already facing lawsuits over their egregious admission practices favoring OOS/OOC applicants over in-state and home-county applicants. This is a travesty for both CA HS graduates and their parents because it is happening at ALL UC campuses statewide and the CA state auditor specifically criticized and questioned these practices to the Governor and Legislature in April of this year. I would be interested to see what the UC stats for OOS/OOC freshman admissions look like for Fall 2016.

see: http://piggington.com/dire_climate_ca_public_university_admissions_freshmen#comment-267384

If these OOS/OOC students from well-heeled families are dead set on attending college on the CA coast, they are welcome to apply to CA’s many private universities which don’t use our taxpayer funds which should be set aside for resident applicants (with taxpaying parents). We don’t owe them seats in our ~32 public universities as these campuses don’t even have enough room to accommodate all of the qualified IN-STATE freshman and junior applicants they get! And yes, ALL of CA’s public campuses have their own deep-pocketed donors … including their own respective (very successful) alumni!

[bearishgurl]

[quote=scaredyclassic]what benefits an individual may harm society. how else can we kill people.

repeal helmet laws.
legalize heroin.
give tax refunds by check or double that value in cartons of cigs
need more ideas…[/quote]I’m highly sensitive to and allergic to cigarette smoke. I can’t even stand to stay in a “non-smoking” room in a hotel which allows smoking on the premises because the smoke invariably comes through the air conditioning ducts. It’s disgusting to me, will adversely affect my sinuses and I won’t be able to sleep. I won’t go into restaurants in flyover states which still have “smoking sections” because (like casinos) they just don’t “work.”

If TG’s idea was put into practice in all 50 states, I would probably have to move out of the country (or to an isolated area with a low population where the housing is far apart). I can’t even stand to pass someone on the sidewalk smoking. If I see someone ahead of me smoking on the sidewalk, I take a deep breath and then take short exhales out of my mouth until I run past them. If they are smoking cigars, I immediately attempt to cross the street, even if I have to “jaywalk” or cross half of the street at a time (until oncoming traffic passes).

Allowing smoking in public is a violation of citizens’ rights to breathe clean air (as clean as possible in some cities). Allowing smoking in one’s rental unit means the LL better take a HUGE security deposit because they’re going to need it upon move-out to mitigate the permutation of smoke odor in everything in the unit (even if no carpet or drapes exist). If they don’t clean it up properly after move-out, they’re going to have a hard time getting a future tenant who is decent. In some apt/condo/coop complexes with units on multiple floors, one tenant’s smoke can easily enter another tenant’s unit thru the shared HVAC ducts.

I think all smoke products (incl “snuff”) should be taxed the hell out of and the money diverted to health insurance carriers because I am paying in spades in my obamacare premium for my “brethren” to indulge in tobacco products, alcohol and drugs to their hearts content (or did for decade(s) in their lives and are “clean” now … doesn’t matter) so they can have an “affordable” healthplan in spite of their (present or former) “lifestyle choices.” My health premiums have been $5500 to $7000 more every year under the ACA than they were before the ACA became law and my paltry “subsidy” does not even come close to fully compensating me for that, nor do my subsidy increases year to year even represent 10% of the rate hikes I have been receiving every year beginning 1/1/15. The ACA is unfair and actually penalizes people who take personal responsibility for their health because it is priced on age, NOT the state of one’s health. I am so happy that the law will be repealed in 2017!

CO (and I think UT) doesn’t have any helmet laws and the result isn’t pretty, especially for young MC drivers and especially in the mountains. It is the young, inexperienced and daring drivers who are “killed off” by not wearing helmets, NOT the 65 year-old highly-experienced driver on his or her Honda Goldwing or Harley (with sidebags) touring the country. The latter group has seen a lot in their lifetimes and they wear helmets 100% of the time, no matter what the weather is or the laws are in the state they are riding in. I have 3 close relatives who were gravely injured (even one who lost a leg at age 18 and one who lost his life at age 19) in MC accidents. One was 60 years old and had been riding (always with a helmet) since he was 18. He had over $125K in lost pay due to his accident injuries and was hit by an uninsured motorist in a large panel van while on his way to work on a busy surface street. ALL of these people were wearing good helmets. MC riding is dangerous enough even while wearing a helmet. Deciding not to wear one (especially while riding on the freeway or on mountain roads) is suicidal, IMO.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=NotCranky][quote=bearishgurl][quote=spdrun]If you don’t want a woman who’s a gold-digger, the best answer is to date one that’s roughly your equal and intelligent/successful/competent on her own. You can’t have it both ways: weak/subservient and not needing your money.

First date is important … if she has trouble knowing what she wants (asks you to order for her) and doesn’t at least offer to leave the tip (ideally in cash), run the other way.[/quote]Excellent advice from the “experienced, serial dater,” spdrun![/quote]

I don’t know about the run the other way part? Why not have sex with her but keep her low priority as a mate and don’t spend a bunch of money on her? you would not have been on a date with her if she wasn’t meeting physical appearance criteria. She’s gonna leave anyway and you want that eventuality , but unless you are getting plenty, don’t run away, just build your options with other women. Or maybe she will change due to these positive masculine prompts?[/quote]LOL, Russ …. you must be a subscriber to askmen.com :=0

[bearishgurl]

[quote=scaredyclassic]ive heard of mgtow…

“romantic entanglements with women fail a cost–benefit analysis and risk–benefit analysis.”

in general, probably true for the majority of men.

it is very risky husiness. life can be good, often much better, without a,woman. i would not advise my kids to join with any woman i thought was not a financial positive. i wouldnt yell at them. but id preach mgtow, at least until they found a deal that looked good.[/quote]Since I think you posted here that you have three sons, you are a good and wise dad, scaredy. Young men should endeavor NOT to entrap themselves with an entitled millenial princess, regardless of their looks. And yes, I have had (both forward and reverse) discussion(s) with my daughter(s) about your (italicized) sentence.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=spdrun]If you don’t want a woman who’s a gold-digger, the best answer is to date one that’s roughly your equal and intelligent/successful/competent on her own. You can’t have it both ways: weak/subservient and not needing your money.

First date is important … if she has trouble knowing what she wants (asks you to order for her) and doesn’t at least offer to leave the tip (ideally in cash), run the other way.[/quote]Excellent advice from the “experienced, serial dater,” spdrun!

[bearishgurl]

[quote=NotCranky]Brian, Before I move on, here is funny counter culture movement to domineering feminist/feminizers and so many women checking out to be Lesbian. It seems men see themselves as trapped between being used by vicious sex depriving women who have the upper hand now, and going their own way. Search MGTOW. I am not saying I agree with it but, there are two sides to every story. Will you celebrate the anti- woman movement as much as the anti-man movement? Maybe you are the one who just wants everything to be bad then you have an excuse to stay nice and safe on the sidelines in your bubble?

No offense meant, just trying to help.[/quote]Good observations and suggestions, Russ.

[Author]

Posts