UC strongly favors applicants with poor math skills. The worse a school is at Math, the higher the admission rate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:California's broken college system has already been talked about. Everyone knows the undergraduate students are lacking in foundational math.

California gets around Proposition 209 by using an equity driven admissions process.

Whether the reputational damage it is suffering right now makes it change course is up for debate.

I don't understand how this damages the reputation. You still fail if you can't make it passed the classes. Professors don't grade on preparation, they grade on output. If someone works harder and fixes their gaps, they have shown they can survive amongst 100s of others who are more prepared than them and thrive. That's commendable. Is the equity stuff efficient? No, of course not. But, it is not going to change the courses themselves.

It is simple. Recruiters will just skip the resumes.

As they've done with all the schools where faculty have complained about diminishing student quality. That just brings us to skipping over... Columbia, Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Princeton, MIT, Caltech, Dartmouth, SMU, BU, Cornell, Uchicago, Notre Dame, Wellesley, UVA, Reed, Georgetown, ...,anyone wanna add to the list?

+1. No one cares about the recruiters skipping resumes in fantasyland.

Ok but who is going to pay for student loans if these folks can't graduate

[Anonymous]

Are we running adult day care until everyone dies?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:California's broken college system has already been talked about. Everyone knows the undergraduate students are lacking in foundational math.

California gets around Proposition 209 by using an equity driven admissions process.

Whether the reputational damage it is suffering right now makes it change course is up for debate.

I don't understand how this damages the reputation. You still fail if you can't make it passed the classes. Professors don't grade on preparation, they grade on output. If someone works harder and fixes their gaps, they have shown they can survive amongst 100s of others who are more prepared than them and thrive. That's commendable. Is the equity stuff efficient? No, of course not. But, it is not going to change the courses themselves.

It is simple. Recruiters will just skip the resumes.

As they've done with all the schools where faculty have complained about diminishing student quality. That just brings us to skipping over... Columbia, Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Princeton, MIT, Caltech, Dartmouth, SMU, BU, Cornell, Uchicago, Notre Dame, Wellesley, UVA, Reed, Georgetown, ...,anyone wanna add to the list?

+1. No one cares about the recruiters skipping resumes in fantasyland.

Ok but who is going to pay for student loans if these folks can't graduate

Seems misguided. There's a 94% graduation rate. Why not look at the actual problematic campuses-the Cal State University System- where less than 40% can graduate in 4 years?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:California's broken college system has already been talked about. Everyone knows the undergraduate students are lacking in foundational math.

California gets around Proposition 209 by using an equity driven admissions process.

Whether the reputational damage it is suffering right now makes it change course is up for debate.

I don't understand how this damages the reputation. You still fail if you can't make it passed the classes. Professors don't grade on preparation, they grade on output. If someone works harder and fixes their gaps, they have shown they can survive amongst 100s of others who are more prepared than them and thrive. That's commendable. Is the equity stuff efficient? No, of course not. But, it is not going to change the courses themselves.

It is simple. Recruiters will just skip the resumes.

As they've done with all the schools where faculty have complained about diminishing student quality. That just brings us to skipping over... Columbia, Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Princeton, MIT, Caltech, Dartmouth, SMU, BU, Cornell, Uchicago, Notre Dame, Wellesley, UVA, Reed, Georgetown, ...,anyone wanna add to the list?

It seems like the answer is that our students just aren’t as good as they used to be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are we running adult day care until everyone dies?

Boomers cleared house on the economy. There's not much left for the upcoming generation. There's no money in global health, there's no money in research, there's no money in any of the fulfilling jobs, and the finance industry, which makes money off of our economic downturns, is currently hiring smaller and smaller cohorts year over year. What do we expect?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:California's broken college system has already been talked about. Everyone knows the undergraduate students are lacking in foundational math.

California gets around Proposition 209 by using an equity driven admissions process.

Whether the reputational damage it is suffering right now makes it change course is up for debate.

I don't understand how this damages the reputation. You still fail if you can't make it passed the classes. Professors don't grade on preparation, they grade on output. If someone works harder and fixes their gaps, they have shown they can survive amongst 100s of others who are more prepared than them and thrive. That's commendable. Is the equity stuff efficient? No, of course not. But, it is not going to change the courses themselves.

It is simple. Recruiters will just skip the resumes.

As they've done with all the schools where faculty have complained about diminishing student quality. That just brings us to skipping over... Columbia, Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Princeton, MIT, Caltech, Dartmouth, SMU, BU, Cornell, Uchicago, Notre Dame, Wellesley, UVA, Reed, Georgetown, ...,anyone wanna add to the list?

+1. No one cares about the recruiters skipping resumes in fantasyland.

Ok but who is going to pay for student loans if these folks can't graduate

Seems misguided. There's a 94% graduation rate. Why not look at the actual problematic campuses-the Cal State University System- where less than 40% can graduate in 4 years?

If they are finding good employments, and not complaining about worthless degree, contribute to their share of tax. great.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are less students from low resource schools applying to Berkeley and UCLA. Why is this not at all discussed?

I read somewhere UCSD admits a large number of kids from certain low-performing schools as they get extra subsidies for kids from these schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are we running adult day care until everyone dies?

Boomers cleared house on the economy. There's not much left for the upcoming generation. There's no money in global health, there's no money in research, there's no money in any of the fulfilling jobs, and the finance industry, which makes money off of our economic downturns, is currently hiring smaller and smaller cohorts year over year. What do we expect?

if someone can come from a place where they don't even have clean drinking water, make it all the way to the U.S., and build a life for themselves, then you can figure out a way forward too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:California's broken college system has already been talked about. Everyone knows the undergraduate students are lacking in foundational math.

California gets around Proposition 209 by using an equity driven admissions process.

Whether the reputational damage it is suffering right now makes it change course is up for debate.

I don't understand how this damages the reputation. You still fail if you can't make it passed the classes. Professors don't grade on preparation, they grade on output. If someone works harder and fixes their gaps, they have shown they can survive amongst 100s of others who are more prepared than them and thrive. That's commendable. Is the equity stuff efficient? No, of course not. But, it is not going to change the courses themselves.

It is simple. Recruiters will just skip the resumes.

As they've done with all the schools where faculty have complained about diminishing student quality. That just brings us to skipping over... Columbia, Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Princeton, MIT, Caltech, Dartmouth, SMU, BU, Cornell, Uchicago, Notre Dame, Wellesley, UVA, Reed, Georgetown, ...,anyone wanna add to the list?

+1. No one cares about the recruiters skipping resumes in fantasyland.

Ok but who is going to pay for student loans if these folks can't graduate

Seems misguided. There's a 94% graduation rate. Why not look at the actual problematic campuses-the Cal State University System- where less than 40% can graduate in 4 years?

UCSD’s 4-year grad rate is 75%.

[Anonymous]

What people can learn from UC is that GPA alone is never reliable. GPA works for predicting performance if two students are from a same or similar high school, same SAT score, and same rigor. GPA has no meaning when you have two students, even from a same high school, one with 1550 test score the other 1300.

[jsteele]

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1327108.page