Decreasing in Quality

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand spending $$$$$ on party schools like FSU, Tulane, U of Conn, etc.

Sometimes you have to roll with the acceptances you receive. My DC has a ton of WLs and Tulane is the best choice out of the acceptances. Looks like we are paying for Tulane!

[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%.

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?

I think Niche has several different types of ratings. But the questions like "Is it easy to get the classes you want?" and "Are professors approachable and helpful when needed?" are from surveys answered by students and alumni.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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%.

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?

I think Niche has several different types of ratings. But the questions like "Is it easy to get the classes you want?" and "Are professors approachable and helpful when needed?" are from surveys answered by students and alumni.

Oh my goodness. My friend's daughter was just asking me about Berkeley and I shared that overall I had a good impression from the school based on visiting and some alums I know. But that is concerning.

[Anonymous]

Berkeley sux knutts. Overcrowded, impossible to get the classes you want, even more impossible to graduate in four years, high tuition and even higher living costs, disinterested professors who view undergrads as nuisances taking time away from their research, zero aid for out out state students, stifling PC and SJW culture that brooks no dissent, need I go on?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Berkeley sux knutts. Overcrowded, impossible to get the classes you want, even more impossible to graduate in four years, high tuition and even higher living costs, disinterested professors who view undergrads as nuisances taking time away from their research, zero aid for out out state students, stifling PC and SJW culture that brooks no dissent, need I go on?

Are you current student, parent of a current student, or recent alum? Faculty?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Berkeley sux knutts. Overcrowded, impossible to get the classes you want, even more impossible to graduate in four years, high tuition and even higher living costs, disinterested professors who view undergrads as nuisances taking time away from their research, zero aid for out out state students, stifling PC and SJW culture that brooks no dissent, need I go on?

Are you current student, parent of a current student, or recent alum? Faculty?

The impression here in the bay area is that Berkeley is very competitive and the kids are cut throat. My DS opted for UCLA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Berkeley sux knutts. Overcrowded, impossible to get the classes you want, even more impossible to graduate in four years, high tuition and even higher living costs, disinterested professors who view undergrads as nuisances taking time away from their research, zero aid for out out state students, stifling PC and SJW culture that brooks no dissent, need I go on?

Are you current student, parent of a current student, or recent alum? Faculty?

Yes, PP is a Berkeley faculty member who opens their argument by stating something "sux knutts." It's not the #2 public school in the nation for nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Berkeley sux knutts. Overcrowded, impossible to get the classes you want, even more impossible to graduate in four years, high tuition and even higher living costs, disinterested professors who view undergrads as nuisances taking time away from their research, zero aid for out out state students, stifling PC and SJW culture that brooks no dissent, need I go on?

Are you current student, parent of a current student, or recent alum? Faculty?

Yes, PP is a Berkeley faculty member who opens their argument by stating something "sux knutts." It's not the #2 public school in the nation for nothing.

Pretty much nothing - just because a failed news magazine says so.

[Anonymous]

W&M. If it weren’t a state school offering the incentive of in-state tuition, I couldn’t tell you what it stands for or what makes it different from any other LAC ranked 50+ on USNWR. It’s living on an old reputation, bolstered by its in-state status, and isn’t sure where it wants to take itself outside of trying to fundraise as much as possible. For what, exactly, except bragging rights? No one knows.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Berkeley sux knutts. Overcrowded, impossible to get the classes you want, even more impossible to graduate in four years, high tuition and even higher living costs, disinterested professors who view undergrads as nuisances taking time away from their research, zero aid for out out state students, stifling PC and SJW culture that brooks no dissent, need I go on?

Are you current student, parent of a current student, or recent alum? Faculty?

Yes, PP is a Berkeley faculty member who opens their argument by stating something "sux knutts." It's not the #2 public school in the nation for nothing.

Pretty much nothing - just because a failed news magazine says so.

But we should trust a random internet moron. Got it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s by no means a bad school but Georgetown (outside of SFS) isn’t what it used to be

BS - both the Business School and School of Nursing are tops.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Morehouse especially!

Did I see you at the Howard homecoming?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:W&M. If it weren’t a state school offering the incentive of in-state tuition, I couldn’t tell you what it stands for or what makes it different from any other LAC ranked 50+ on USNWR. It’s living on an old reputation, bolstered by its in-state status, and isn’t sure where it wants to take itself outside of trying to fundraise as much as possible. For what, exactly, except bragging rights? No one knows.

Totally disagree. Fantastic undergraduate teaching (#4), small classes, gorgeous campus and consistently ranked as one of the happiest college campuses around. And clearly committed to its students since it rolled back the previously announced tuition increases when Covid struck. Find me a lot of other schools without gigantic endowments that did the same (and a lot of Ivies and other schools with gigantic endowments continued to hike prices, including UVA which has an endowment that's eight times as large).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What did you get in English class? C? C-?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What did you get in English class? C? C-?

Ha! A second delicious whinytears cocktail served on the house! Thank you very much!