Decreasing in Quality

[Anonymous]

Old thread but interesting discussion, for me it's UVM. Used to be a pretty top state school when I was in college in the early 90s, now seems to have dropped dramatically from an acceptance rate standpoint. I understand that's due in large part to the dying economy in VT but it is a shame.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Per YEAR?!?!?!?!

If you’re talking about the Skidmore post. Yep.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Returning to the original question, I would not spend out of state tuition to send my kids for undergraduate studies at one of University of California schools (such as Berkeley or UCLA) due to terrible budget concerns and overcrowding that cause kids to take 6 years to graduate, on average.

I don’t understand this comment. The four year grad rate at UCLA and Berkeley is 77% and 75% respectively. With the exception of UVA and W&M, that’s right on par with other top publics.

yeah but 77% is Terrible. UVa is like 94%.

Cmu is only 72%. Lehigh’s is similar but I can’t remember what it is

It's because UCLA and UC Berkeley have a large and rigorous engineering programs, along with a large number of community college transfer and a more middle-classpopulation of kids who work part-time during college.

UVA and W&M are liberal arts schools, basically. And they have the wealthiest kids among publics. Although I find it hard to believe UVA's 94% 4-year rate considering the community college students they must take in.

Berkeley has a lot of problems that contribute to its lower graduation rate. Lack of affordable housing. Lake of classes needed to graduate. Look there first. From SF Chronicle:

UC Berkeley has neglected students in need of stable housing. A survey commissioned by the university found that 10 percent of students have experienced homelessness while attending UC Berkeley, with 20 percent of postdoctoral students having experienced homelessness. UC Berkeley provides fewer beds per student than any other school in the UC system, housing less than a quarter of undergraduates.

This is simply not true. The reason for the poor graduation rate in the U.C. schools is because they are so large that students cannot register for the classes that they need, ergo it takes five or six years. Read Chronicle of Higher Education, College Confidential and Reddit on this.

What an utterly idiotic argument.

MIT 4-year graduation rate is 85%, and CMU's is 76%. Are these schools where students can't register for classes and therefore take longer? or are the students at UVA/W&M more qualified than these students?

No, its because these schools are incredibly rigorous and hard, and not just in engineering.

Berkeley fails thousands of top STEM students every year (despite them having very high SAT scores and more than qualified for UVA, etc.), meaning these students have to re-take classes, or change majors, etc. It's bad for the students, but it maintains a high level of credibility for Berkeley graduates and is why Berkeley STEM graduates are viewed as academically equivalent to the likes of MIT, top/middle-tier Ivies (they are generally considered stronger academically than Dartmouth/Brown), etc.

UVA, W&M are liberal arts-focused schools. It is impossible to fail a humanities class unless the student literally does not turn in assignments and never shows up to class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Returning to the original question, I would not spend out of state tuition to send my kids for undergraduate studies at one of University of California schools (such as Berkeley or UCLA) due to terrible budget concerns and overcrowding that cause kids to take 6 years to graduate, on average.

I don’t understand this comment. The four year grad rate at UCLA and Berkeley is 77% and 75% respectively. With the exception of UVA and W&M, that’s right on par with other top publics.

yeah but 77% is Terrible. UVa is like 94%.

I don't think UVA 4 year is closer to 90%, which is excellent. It is one of UVA's strongest points in USNWR ranking. I'd cut some slack to Berkeley (and more so schools like MIT) because they have more students in some difficult majors (e.g. engineering) that are tougher to finish in 4 years.

Where is there proof that Berkeley and UVA are counting completions differently? The Common Data Set is supposed to make reporting more standardized.

Niche has a question on whether students agree it is easy to get the classes you want. UCLA (top ranked public in USNWR) is only 32% positive, Berkeley is 39%, UVA is 50%. These are all well below top privates, but shows UVA with an advantage there.

I think you should not send your kid OOS Berkeley or UCLA if you expect an undergraduate experience that is like what similar privates would be at the same cost level. You kid will get the same experience as in-state students, which is a stripped down model. These schools first and foremost focus on research and graduate programs. Undergraduate programs suffer in some ways for that. If you are OK with that fine, but you could argue you are getting a Honda in some respects for a BMW price.

Can you please post the link for that information? I really want to know this as a parent of a senior who's deciding where to go. I paid a bloody fortune for a Master's degree at a top 10 school a couple of decades ago and ended up having to settle for a bunch of classes I didn't want. I never got over how lousy that program was given what I had to pay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Returning to the original question, I would not spend out of state tuition to send my kids for undergraduate studies at one of University of California schools (such as Berkeley or UCLA) due to terrible budget concerns and overcrowding that cause kids to take 6 years to graduate, on average.

I don’t understand this comment. The four year grad rate at UCLA and Berkeley is 77% and 75% respectively. With the exception of UVA and W&M, that’s right on par with other top publics.

yeah but 77% is Terrible. UVa is like 94%.

I don't think UVA 4 year is closer to 90%, which is excellent. It is one of UVA's strongest points in USNWR ranking. I'd cut some slack to Berkeley (and more so schools like MIT) because they have more students in some difficult majors (e.g. engineering) that are tougher to finish in 4 years.

Where is there proof that Berkeley and UVA are counting completions differently? The Common Data Set is supposed to make reporting more standardized.

Niche has a question on whether students agree it is easy to get the classes you want. UCLA (top ranked public in USNWR) is only 32% positive, Berkeley is 39%, UVA is 50%. These are all well below top privates, but shows UVA with an advantage there.

I think you should not send your kid OOS Berkeley or UCLA if you expect an undergraduate experience that is like what similar privates would be at the same cost level. You kid will get the same experience as in-state students, which is a stripped down model. These schools first and foremost focus on research and graduate programs. Undergraduate programs suffer in some ways for that. If you are OK with that fine, but you could argue you are getting a Honda in some respects for a BMW price.

Can you please post the link for that information? I really want to know this as a parent of a senior who's deciding where to go. I paid a bloody fortune for a Master's degree at a top 10 school a couple of decades ago and ended up having to settle for a bunch of classes I didn't want. I never got over how lousy that program was given what I had to pay.

Here is an example for Berkeley. That question is under "Academics". https://www.niche.com/colleges/university-of-california---berkeley/#academics

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Returning to the original question, I would not spend out of state tuition to send my kids for undergraduate studies at one of University of California schools (such as Berkeley or UCLA) due to terrible budget concerns and overcrowding that cause kids to take 6 years to graduate, on average.

Stop spreading false information.

[Anonymous]

Higher education as a whole is past its prime. Students aren't taught or challenged anymore to grow into free thinking individuals or productive members of society. They're coddled by a bloat of school administrators who are more worried about being "canceled" than providing an education. This isn't sustainable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Howard, Morehouse, Georgetown, Cornell, UCB, Tufts, Lehigh

Tufts...based on...? I’d like to hear this one! Maybe you dislike elephants?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Higher education as a whole is past its prime. Students aren't taught or challenged anymore to grow into free thinking individuals or productive members of society. They're coddled by a bloat of school administrators who are more worried about being "canceled" than providing an education. This isn't sustainable.

God damn right. The life of the mind, Socratic era of higher education has long passed. Most colleges today are white-collar trade schools that double as woke SJW indoctrination camps.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Higher education as a whole is past its prime. Students aren't taught or challenged anymore to grow into free thinking individuals or productive members of society. They're coddled by a bloat of school administrators who are more worried about being "canceled" than providing an education. This isn't sustainable.

God damn right. The life of the mind, Socratic era of higher education has long passed. Most colleges today are white-collar trade schools that double as woke SJW indoctrination camps.

whoa someone's got a chip on their shoulder

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Higher education as a whole is past its prime. Students aren't taught or challenged anymore to grow into free thinking individuals or productive members of society. They're coddled by a bloat of school administrators who are more worried about being "canceled" than providing an education. This isn't sustainable.

God damn right. The life of the mind, Socratic era of higher education has long passed. Most colleges today are white-collar trade schools that double as woke SJW indoctrination camps.

DP. This is sadly so true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Higher education as a whole is past its prime. Students aren't taught or challenged anymore to grow into free thinking individuals or productive members of society. They're coddled by a bloat of school administrators who are more worried about being "canceled" than providing an education. This isn't sustainable.

God damn right. The life of the mind, Socratic era of higher education has long passed. Most colleges today are white-collar trade schools that double as woke SJW indoctrination camps.

DP. This is sadly so true.

MAGA

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Higher education as a whole is past its prime. Students aren't taught or challenged anymore to grow into free thinking individuals or productive members of society. They're coddled by a bloat of school administrators who are more worried about being "canceled" than providing an education. This isn't sustainable.

God damn right. The life of the mind, Socratic era of higher education has long passed. Most colleges today are white-collar trade schools that double as woke SJW indoctrination camps.

DP. This is sadly so true.

MAGA

Sure, whatever makes you feel better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Returning to the original question, I would not spend out of state tuition to send my kids for undergraduate studies at one of University of California schools (such as Berkeley or UCLA) due to terrible budget concerns and overcrowding that cause kids to take 6 years to graduate, on average.

I don’t understand this comment. The four year grad rate at UCLA and Berkeley is 77% and 75% respectively. With the exception of UVA and W&M, that’s right on par with other top publics.

yeah but 77% is Terrible. UVa is like 94%.

I don't think UVA 4 year is closer to 90%, which is excellent. It is one of UVA's strongest points in USNWR ranking. I'd cut some slack to Berkeley (and more so schools like MIT) because they have more students in some difficult majors (e.g. engineering) that are tougher to finish in 4 years.

Where is there proof that Berkeley and UVA are counting completions differently? The Common Data Set is supposed to make reporting more standardized.

Niche has a question on whether students agree it is easy to get the classes you want. UCLA (top ranked public in USNWR) is only 32% positive, Berkeley is 39%, UVA is 50%. These are all well below top privates, but shows UVA with an advantage there.

I think you should not send your kid OOS Berkeley or UCLA if you expect an undergraduate experience that is like what similar privates would be at the same cost level. You kid will get the same experience as in-state students, which is a stripped down model. These schools first and foremost focus on research and graduate programs. Undergraduate programs suffer in some ways for that. If you are OK with that fine, but you could argue you are getting a Honda in some respects for a BMW price.

Can you please post the link for that information? I really want to know this as a parent of a senior who's deciding where to go. I paid a bloody fortune for a Master's degree at a top 10 school a couple of decades ago and ended up having to settle for a bunch of classes I didn't want. I never got over how lousy that program was given what I had to pay.

Here is an example for Berkeley. That question is under "Academics". https://www.niche.com/colleges/university-of-california---berkeley/#academics

This is a really interesting site. What's the difference between the way they compile their ratings and USNWR?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Higher education as a whole is past its prime. Students aren't taught or challenged anymore to grow into free thinking individuals or productive members of society. They're coddled by a bloat of school administrators who are more worried about being "canceled" than providing an education. This isn't sustainable.

God damn right. The life of the mind, Socratic era of higher education has long passed. Most colleges today are white-collar trade schools that double as woke SJW indoctrination camps.

DP. This is sadly so true.

MAGA

Sure, whatever makes you feel better.

If you had any idea of the incredible healing power and deliciousness that accompany drinking your tears you would stop whining and crying so damned much.