Terrible dysfunction at UC administration

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UCs are not worth it for undergraduate studies. With tens of thousands of students, you are a number to the administration and faculty. You will not get access to research and you will be taught by research assistants not professors. If this is the experience you want for your kid, and willing to pay $70,000 a year, then fine and accept the situation.

If you can't get into a research lab at a public university, you might just be bad at your subject or a complete idiot at talking to others. It is very easy compared to smaller colleges where you have to pull teeth and constantly keep in touch with a professor for them to even begin considering you.

You have it backwards, easier to get in a lab when you have a personal relationship with professor from being in a small class with them.

[Anonymous]

The point of going to a state school is to save money. Why would you pay 75k for a state school? Bizarre.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The point of going to a state school is to save money. Why would you pay 75k for a state school? Bizarre.

Yeah. Unless there is a special program not found elsewhere.

We are paying for a T10 given the size and strong undergrad teaching. I wouldn’t pay this much for a large public.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The point of going to a state school is to save money. Why would you pay 75k for a state school? Bizarre.

This.

[Anonymous]

It's California. None of this should really be that much of a surprise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UCs are not worth it for undergraduate studies. With tens of thousands of students, you are a number to the administration and faculty. You will not get access to research and you will be taught by research assistants not professors. If this is the experience you want for your kid, and willing to pay $70,000 a year, then fine and accept the situation.

Not just here in the U.S. but globally, the UC system is perceived as the gold standard for U.S. public education, and by a large margin. After UCLA and Cal, the drop-off to Michigan, Texas, Washington, UNC, UVA, and Florida is significant (especially globally). Everything else you said is reflective of the experience for a very small group of students who failed to do their part in pursuing the ample opportunities available to everyone in the UCs.

I take issue with this. The UC schools have an excellent reputation for post graduate research. Very few of the hundreds of thousands of students attending a UC have anything to do with this research.

PP here. I have EXTENSIVE personal experience over the past 25 years at one of the top UC campuses, with dual appointment on the clinical side. Across multiple labs, I have personally supervised junior faculty, postdocs, project scientists, grad students, and yes, dozens of undergrad students.

Most of my colleagues staff their labs the same way, with undergrad students forming an essential layer of research assistance. Lab manager, no. But not a year has passed where I didn’t have at least 4-5 undergrad students working in my labels throughout the year.

You appear to have limited knowledge of the subject matter.

A whole 4 to 5 out of how many undergrads? I didn’t say no undergrad students worked in labs only most don’t. Assume a thousand undergrad students work in labs at ucla in any given year. We can even assume 2000, although that’s unlikely. It would still be the case that more than 90 percent of ucla undergrads aren’t working on such research.

Exactly right.

4 to 5 students says nothing. How many applications were there? How many kids want to do research but are turned away?

Ironic that the researcher with "EXTENSIVE personal experience" doesn't have the data analysis skills to realize how stupid their argument is. (And this person is supervising faculty, postdocs, and scientists!)

4-5 undergrads per year, on average, in one of perhaps 120 - 140 labs like mine. You and the prior poster also assume that 100% of the undergraduates at a top public like Cal or UCLA have academic or professional interests that would even benefit from research experience. Given the foregoing, I’ll defer editorializing on the quality of your response.

People outside California are consumed by taking shots at the UC system. I understand that many seniors are undercut by rejection letters from UC schools every year. I understand that these rejections often lead to sudden declarations like “I wouldn’t let my child attend a UC if you paid me!”.

But make no mistake: not a single parent of a child who gets a UC golden ticket shares that sudden disdain for the system. It just doesn’t exist. You know it. I know it. Everyone knows it.

So who broke your kid’s heart? Cal? UCLA? UCSD? UCI? UCSB? UCD?

(Imagine having six of the Top 15 public institutions in the U.S. in one system?!)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UCs are not worth it for undergraduate studies. With tens of thousands of students, you are a number to the administration and faculty. You will not get access to research and you will be taught by research assistants not professors. If this is the experience you want for your kid, and willing to pay $70,000 a year, then fine and accept the situation.

If you can't get into a research lab at a public university, you might just be bad at your subject or a complete idiot at talking to others. It is very easy compared to smaller colleges where you have to pull teeth and constantly keep in touch with a professor for them to even begin considering you.

And yet smaller colleges rank much higher in grads that go on to earn STEM PhDs, which often requires working closely with faculty on research.

People chose liberal arts colleges for the purpose of going to grad school. Doesn't mean they're any better at doing so. It's just more of students' interests. At a state university, you also have more career resources.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The point of going to a state school is to save money. Why would you pay 75k for a state school? Bizarre.

Yeah. Unless there is a special program not found elsewhere.

We are paying for a T10 given the size and strong undergrad teaching. I wouldn’t pay this much for a large public.

Yet many people do pay for these schools. Michigan had 50% OOS and UCs are having no problem filling their OOS quota. Maybe it is not your preference but many are willing to do so. My DS had a roommate this past semester at Berkeley who was studying and visiting from Williams. The Williams kid appreciated the variety of courses and seemed to have a great time. Only on DCUM is there so much disdain for any school that is not like their kid's. Recently when my DS met his HS friends he realized that kids complain and have issues at all kinds of schools, Ivies, State schools, SLACs but they still seem to be having a good time. Kids are more honest with one another and seem more mature and understanding that despite good grades and working hard, there is an element of luck in the process and not to look down on others with different school choices. Most kids are not like DCUM parents.

[Anonymous]

My DC had no problem doing research in CS field his first year as CS/Economics major on campus at Berkeley. There is a program to help freshmen find research on campus.

It was worth it since he is making $480k per year 6 years after graduation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UCs are not worth it for undergraduate studies. With tens of thousands of students, you are a number to the administration and faculty. You will not get access to research and you will be taught by research assistants not professors. If this is the experience you want for your kid, and willing to pay $70,000 a year, then fine and accept the situation.

Not just here in the U.S. but globally, the UC system is perceived as the gold standard for U.S. public education, and by a large margin. After UCLA and Cal, the drop-off to Michigan, Texas, Washington, UNC, UVA, and Florida is significant (especially globally). Everything else you said is reflective of the experience for a very small group of students who failed to do their part in pursuing the ample opportunities available to everyone in the UCs.

I take issue with this. The UC schools have an excellent reputation for post graduate research. Very few of the hundreds of thousands of students attending a UC have anything to do with this research.

PP here. I have EXTENSIVE personal experience over the past 25 years at one of the top UC campuses, with dual appointment on the clinical side. Across multiple labs, I have personally supervised junior faculty, postdocs, project scientists, grad students, and yes, dozens of undergrad students.

Most of my colleagues staff their labs the same way, with undergrad students forming an essential layer of research assistance. Lab manager, no. But not a year has passed where I didn’t have at least 4-5 undergrad students working in my labels throughout the year.

You appear to have limited knowledge of the subject matter.

A whole 4 to 5 out of how many undergrads? I didn’t say no undergrad students worked in labs only most don’t. Assume a thousand undergrad students work in labs at ucla in any given year. We can even assume 2000, although that’s unlikely. It would still be the case that more than 90 percent of ucla undergrads aren’t working on such research.

Exactly right.

4 to 5 students says nothing. How many applications were there? How many kids want to do research but are turned away?

Ironic that the researcher with "EXTENSIVE personal experience" doesn't have the data analysis skills to realize how stupid their argument is. (And this person is supervising faculty, postdocs, and scientists!)

4-5 undergrads per year, on average, in one of perhaps 120 - 140 labs like mine. You and the prior poster also assume that 100% of the undergraduates at a top public like Cal or UCLA have academic or professional interests that would even benefit from research experience. Given the foregoing, I’ll defer editorializing on the quality of your response.

People outside California are consumed by taking shots at the UC system. I understand that many seniors are undercut by rejection letters from UC schools every year. I understand that these rejections often lead to sudden declarations like “I wouldn’t let my child attend a UC if you paid me!”.

But make no mistake: not a single parent of a child who gets a UC golden ticket shares that sudden disdain for the system. It just doesn’t exist. You know it. I know it. Everyone knows it.

So who broke your kid’s heart? Cal? UCLA? UCSD? UCI? UCSB? UCD?

(Imagine having six of the Top 15 public institutions in the U.S. in one system?!)

So by your calculation, 700 kids out of 32,000. The opposite of impressive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My DC had no problem doing research in CS field his first year as CS/Economics major on campus at Berkeley. There is a program to help freshmen find research on campus.

It was worth it since he is making $480k per year 6 years after graduation.

My DS also did extensive research in econometrics while OOS undergraduate at UC Berkeley. The research led to internship and the internship led to permanent position.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UCs are not worth it for undergraduate studies. With tens of thousands of students, you are a number to the administration and faculty. You will not get access to research and you will be taught by research assistants not professors. If this is the experience you want for your kid, and willing to pay $70,000 a year, then fine and accept the situation.

Not just here in the U.S. but globally, the UC system is perceived as the gold standard for U.S. public education, and by a large margin. After UCLA and Cal, the drop-off to Michigan, Texas, Washington, UNC, UVA, and Florida is significant (especially globally). Everything else you said is reflective of the experience for a very small group of students who failed to do their part in pursuing the ample opportunities available to everyone in the UCs.

I take issue with this. The UC schools have an excellent reputation for post graduate research. Very few of the hundreds of thousands of students attending a UC have anything to do with this research.

PP here. I have EXTENSIVE personal experience over the past 25 years at one of the top UC campuses, with dual appointment on the clinical side. Across multiple labs, I have personally supervised junior faculty, postdocs, project scientists, grad students, and yes, dozens of undergrad students.

Most of my colleagues staff their labs the same way, with undergrad students forming an essential layer of research assistance. Lab manager, no. But not a year has passed where I didn’t have at least 4-5 undergrad students working in my labels throughout the year.

You appear to have limited knowledge of the subject matter.

A whole 4 to 5 out of how many undergrads? I didn’t say no undergrad students worked in labs only most don’t. Assume a thousand undergrad students work in labs at ucla in any given year. We can even assume 2000, although that’s unlikely. It would still be the case that more than 90 percent of ucla undergrads aren’t working on such research.

Exactly right.

4 to 5 students says nothing. How many applications were there? How many kids want to do research but are turned away?

Ironic that the researcher with "EXTENSIVE personal experience" doesn't have the data analysis skills to realize how stupid their argument is. (And this person is supervising faculty, postdocs, and scientists!)

4-5 undergrads per year, on average, in one of perhaps 120 - 140 labs like mine. You and the prior poster also assume that 100% of the undergraduates at a top public like Cal or UCLA have academic or professional interests that would even benefit from research experience. Given the foregoing, I’ll defer editorializing on the quality of your response.

People outside California are consumed by taking shots at the UC system. I understand that many seniors are undercut by rejection letters from UC schools every year. I understand that these rejections often lead to sudden declarations like “I wouldn’t let my child attend a UC if you paid me!”.

But make no mistake: not a single parent of a child who gets a UC golden ticket shares that sudden disdain for the system. It just doesn’t exist. You know it. I know it. Everyone knows it.

So who broke your kid’s heart? Cal? UCLA? UCSD? UCI? UCSB? UCD?

(Imagine having six of the Top 15 public institutions in the U.S. in one system?!)

So by your calculation, 700 kids out of 32,000. The opposite of impressive.

Look, your agenda is clear. In addition to that, you appear to lack the ability to understand that 550 - 700 undergrads in research lab settings in a School of Medicine does NOT represent the only research opportunities - not by a long shot - available to students at what has been a Top 1 or Top 2 public institution for the past several decades.

There are clinical settings, others schools and departments within the university, and collaborations with research and clinical partners outside the various schools that expand the opportunity footprint considerably. Are there slots for all in graduate students? Of course not. It’s a competitive staffing process, but much less competitive than the process these students faced in getting here.

The research dollars flowing into this kind of school is massive. As in, there are less than two handfuls of institutions in the nation with more research funding. And it grows year after year, I guess much to your consternation.

Look, if you cannot overcome your resentment because your kid received an unwelcome surprise in March, it’s really time to get over it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UCs are not worth it for undergraduate studies. With tens of thousands of students, you are a number to the administration and faculty. You will not get access to research and you will be taught by research assistants not professors. If this is the experience you want for your kid, and willing to pay $70,000 a year, then fine and accept the situation.

If you can't get into a research lab at a public university, you might just be bad at your subject or a complete idiot at talking to others. It is very easy compared to smaller colleges where you have to pull teeth and constantly keep in touch with a professor for them to even begin considering you.

And yet smaller colleges rank much higher in grads that go on to earn STEM PhDs, which often requires working closely with faculty on research.

People chose liberal arts colleges for the purpose of going to grad school. Doesn't mean they're any better at doing so. It's just more of students' interests. At a state university, you also have more career resources.

That is a theory, but the data also seems to suggest higher rates from selective LACs on medical school admission than from comparably selective large research universities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UCs are not worth it for undergraduate studies. With tens of thousands of students, you are a number to the administration and faculty. You will not get access to research and you will be taught by research assistants not professors. If this is the experience you want for your kid, and willing to pay $70,000 a year, then fine and accept the situation.

Not just here in the U.S. but globally, the UC system is perceived as the gold standard for U.S. public education, and by a large margin. After UCLA and Cal, the drop-off to Michigan, Texas, Washington, UNC, UVA, and Florida is significant (especially globally). Everything else you said is reflective of the experience for a very small group of students who failed to do their part in pursuing the ample opportunities available to everyone in the UCs.

I take issue with this. The UC schools have an excellent reputation for post graduate research. Very few of the hundreds of thousands of students attending a UC have anything to do with this research.

PP here. I have EXTENSIVE personal experience over the past 25 years at one of the top UC campuses, with dual appointment on the clinical side. Across multiple labs, I have personally supervised junior faculty, postdocs, project scientists, grad students, and yes, dozens of undergrad students.

Most of my colleagues staff their labs the same way, with undergrad students forming an essential layer of research assistance. Lab manager, no. But not a year has passed where I didn’t have at least 4-5 undergrad students working in my labels throughout the year.

You appear to have limited knowledge of the subject matter.

A whole 4 to 5 out of how many undergrads? I didn’t say no undergrad students worked in labs only most don’t. Assume a thousand undergrad students work in labs at ucla in any given year. We can even assume 2000, although that’s unlikely. It would still be the case that more than 90 percent of ucla undergrads aren’t working on such research.

Exactly right.

4 to 5 students says nothing. How many applications were there? How many kids want to do research but are turned away?

Ironic that the researcher with "EXTENSIVE personal experience" doesn't have the data analysis skills to realize how stupid their argument is. (And this person is supervising faculty, postdocs, and scientists!)

4-5 undergrads per year, on average, in one of perhaps 120 - 140 labs like mine. You and the prior poster also assume that 100% of the undergraduates at a top public like Cal or UCLA have academic or professional interests that would even benefit from research experience. Given the foregoing, I’ll defer editorializing on the quality of your response.

People outside California are consumed by taking shots at the UC system. I understand that many seniors are undercut by rejection letters from UC schools every year. I understand that these rejections often lead to sudden declarations like “I wouldn’t let my child attend a UC if you paid me!”.

But make no mistake: not a single parent of a child who gets a UC golden ticket shares that sudden disdain for the system. It just doesn’t exist. You know it. I know it. Everyone knows it.

So who broke your kid’s heart? Cal? UCLA? UCSD? UCI? UCSB? UCD?

(Imagine having six of the Top 15 public institutions in the U.S. in one system?!)

So by your calculation, 700 kids out of 32,000. The opposite of impressive.

Look, your agenda is clear. In addition to that, you appear to lack the ability to understand that 550 - 700 undergrads in research lab settings in a School of Medicine does NOT represent the only research opportunities - not by a long shot - available to students at what has been a Top 1 or Top 2 public institution for the past several decades.

There are clinical settings, others schools and departments within the university, and collaborations with research and clinical partners outside the various schools that expand the opportunity footprint considerably. Are there slots for all in graduate students? Of course not. It’s a competitive staffing process, but much less competitive than the process these students faced in getting here.

The research dollars flowing into this kind of school is massive. As in, there are less than two handfuls of institutions in the nation with more research funding. And it grows year after year, I guess much to your consternation.

Look, if you cannot overcome your resentment because your kid received an unwelcome surprise in March, it’s really time to get over it.

Federal research dollars do not cover all costs. The institutions typically have to come up with about 30% of the cost. That is often done through undergraduate tuition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UCs are not worth it for undergraduate studies. With tens of thousands of students, you are a number to the administration and faculty. You will not get access to research and you will be taught by research assistants not professors. If this is the experience you want for your kid, and willing to pay $70,000 a year, then fine and accept the situation.

Not just here in the U.S. but globally, the UC system is perceived as the gold standard for U.S. public education, and by a large margin. After UCLA and Cal, the drop-off to Michigan, Texas, Washington, UNC, UVA, and Florida is significant (especially globally). Everything else you said is reflective of the experience for a very small group of students who failed to do their part in pursuing the ample opportunities available to everyone in the UCs.

I take issue with this. The UC schools have an excellent reputation for post graduate research. Very few of the hundreds of thousands of students attending a UC have anything to do with this research.

PP here. I have EXTENSIVE personal experience over the past 25 years at one of the top UC campuses, with dual appointment on the clinical side. Across multiple labs, I have personally supervised junior faculty, postdocs, project scientists, grad students, and yes, dozens of undergrad students.

Most of my colleagues staff their labs the same way, with undergrad students forming an essential layer of research assistance. Lab manager, no. But not a year has passed where I didn’t have at least 4-5 undergrad students working in my labels throughout the year.

You appear to have limited knowledge of the subject matter.

A whole 4 to 5 out of how many undergrads? I didn’t say no undergrad students worked in labs only most don’t. Assume a thousand undergrad students work in labs at ucla in any given year. We can even assume 2000, although that’s unlikely. It would still be the case that more than 90 percent of ucla undergrads aren’t working on such research.

Exactly right.

4 to 5 students says nothing. How many applications were there? How many kids want to do research but are turned away?

Ironic that the researcher with "EXTENSIVE personal experience" doesn't have the data analysis skills to realize how stupid their argument is. (And this person is supervising faculty, postdocs, and scientists!)

4-5 undergrads per year, on average, in one of perhaps 120 - 140 labs like mine. You and the prior poster also assume that 100% of the undergraduates at a top public like Cal or UCLA have academic or professional interests that would even benefit from research experience. Given the foregoing, I’ll defer editorializing on the quality of your response.

People outside California are consumed by taking shots at the UC system. I understand that many seniors are undercut by rejection letters from UC schools every year. I understand that these rejections often lead to sudden declarations like “I wouldn’t let my child attend a UC if you paid me!”.

But make no mistake: not a single parent of a child who gets a UC golden ticket shares that sudden disdain for the system. It just doesn’t exist. You know it. I know it. Everyone knows it.

So who broke your kid’s heart? Cal? UCLA? UCSD? UCI? UCSB? UCD?

(Imagine having six of the Top 15 public institutions in the U.S. in one system?!)

So by your calculation, 700 kids out of 32,000. The opposite of impressive.

Look, your agenda is clear. In addition to that, you appear to lack the ability to understand that 550 - 700 undergrads in research lab settings in a School of Medicine does NOT represent the only research opportunities - not by a long shot - available to students at what has been a Top 1 or Top 2 public institution for the past several decades.

There are clinical settings, others schools and departments within the university, and collaborations with research and clinical partners outside the various schools that expand the opportunity footprint considerably. Are there slots for all in graduate students? Of course not. It’s a competitive staffing process, but much less competitive than the process these students faced in getting here.

The research dollars flowing into this kind of school is massive. As in, there are less than two handfuls of institutions in the nation with more research funding. And it grows year after year, I guess much to your consternation.

Look, if you cannot overcome your resentment because your kid received an unwelcome surprise in March, it’s really time to get over it.

Are you representing the point of view of a researcher at a UC or of the experience of an undergraduate student at a UC? They might yield very different perspectives.