Decreasing in Quality

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s a lot of talk about schools that are on the come up. What are some schools that are honestly past their prime? Don’t use this thread to bash on your least favorite school. What schools used to be great but are now living mostly on old prestige?

Just about every thread on this forum is about bashing schools that are rival institutions or that did not admit posters' kids. You are delusional.

This. I can always tell who's bitter about rejections (theirs or their kids') when they bash schools for no reason.

Can you objectively state that the YouTube-quality video lectures from high-end colleges that charge $70,000+ per year is superior to YouTube-video lectures produced by a local community college?

[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.

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seven sisters schools

Sad but true

Especially the non-Wellesley/Barnard ones. Smith, MoHo, and Bryan Mawr are nothing like the used to be.

Disagree. They are great places to be an interested, curious student.

No one said they’re garbage but instead that they have dimmed which is absolutely true for obvious reasons.

Since the top universities are open to women and have been for decades now, the caliber of student going to a seven sisters school is just lower than it used to be since top students have more options. Most Bryan Mawr students now wouldn’t have gotten in 50 years ago. The women who would have gotten in then, go to Penn now.

Not necessarily true. There are some women who just want the single sex environment.

[Anonymous]

Cooper Union

[Anonymous]

Brollinswell

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seven sisters schools

Sad but true

Especially the non-Wellesley/Barnard ones. Smith, MoHo, and Bryan Mawr are nothing like the used to be.

Disagree. They are great places to be an interested, curious student.

No one said they’re garbage but instead that they have dimmed which is absolutely true for obvious reasons.

Since the top universities are open to women and have been for decades now, the caliber of student going to a seven sisters school is just lower than it used to be since top students have more options. Most Bryan Mawr students now wouldn’t have gotten in 50 years ago. The women who would have gotten in then, go to Penn now.

Not necessarily true. There are some women who just want the single sex environment.

Yes but not nearly as many as the number that don’t have that as a priority.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seven sisters schools

Sad but true

Especially the non-Wellesley/Barnard ones. Smith, MoHo, and Bryan Mawr are nothing like the used to be.

Disagree. They are great places to be an interested, curious student.

No one said they’re garbage but instead that they have dimmed which is absolutely true for obvious reasons.

Since the top universities are open to women and have been for decades now, the caliber of student going to a seven sisters school is just lower than it used to be since top students have more options. Most Bryan Mawr students now wouldn’t have gotten in 50 years ago. The women who would have gotten in then, go to Penn now.

Not necessarily true. There are some women who just want the single sex environment.

True, but single sex schools (male or female) are going down and will be extinct in due time

[Anonymous]

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.

These grad rates at UCs are artificially inflated because both Berkeley and UCLA each take in thousands of transfer students from California community colleges each year and count those grads in their overall grad rates. The real 4-year grad rate for a given freshman class is lower than those numbers. Berkeley and UCLA are still great choices for many grad school programs but the undergrad education at those schools is very subpar even with in state tuition for all the reasons mentioned (huge classes, horrible bureaucracy, lack of class community due to limited on-campus housing and constant influx and outflux of students). California parents who live in wealthier areas almost always prefer to send their child to T20-30 private over any UC if kid can get admitted.

[Anonymous]

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.

These grad rates at UCs are artificially inflated because both Berkeley and UCLA each take in thousands of transfer students from California community colleges each year and count those grads in their overall grad rates. The real 4-year grad rate for a given freshman class is lower than those numbers. Berkeley and UCLA are still great choices for many grad school programs but the undergrad education at those schools is very subpar even with in state tuition for all the reasons mentioned (huge classes, horrible bureaucracy, lack of class community due to limited on-campus housing and constant influx and outflux of students). California parents who live in wealthier areas almost always prefer to send their child to T20-30 private over any UC if kid can get admitted.

Source?

That’s not what their common data set says. Of the 4677 first-time, first-year feshmen who entered UC Berkeley in 2013, 3554 graduated in 4 years (76%). Of the 4127 freshmen who entered UC Berkeley in 2012, 3079 graduated in 4 years — 75%.

https://opa.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/uc_berkeley_cds_2019-20.may.11.2020.xlsx

[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.

These grad rates at UCs are artificially inflated because both Berkeley and UCLA each take in thousands of transfer students from California community colleges each year and count those grads in their overall grad rates. The real 4-year grad rate for a given freshman class is lower than those numbers. Berkeley and UCLA are still great choices for many grad school programs but the undergrad education at those schools is very subpar even with in state tuition for all the reasons mentioned (huge classes, horrible bureaucracy, lack of class community due to limited on-campus housing and constant influx and outflux of students). California parents who live in wealthier areas almost always prefer to send their child to T20-30 private over any UC if kid can get admitted.

Source?

That’s not what their common data set says. Of the 4677 first-time, first-year feshmen who entered UC Berkeley in 2013, 3554 graduated in 4 years (76%). Of the 4127 freshmen who entered UC Berkeley in 2012, 3079 graduated in 4 years — 75%.

https://opa.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/uc_berkeley_cds_2019-20.may.11.2020.xlsx

Maybe you should cite data not from 2012 and 2013?

[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.

These grad rates at UCs are artificially inflated because both Berkeley and UCLA each take in thousands of transfer students from California community colleges each year and count those grads in their overall grad rates. The real 4-year grad rate for a given freshman class is lower than those numbers. Berkeley and UCLA are still great choices for many grad school programs but the undergrad education at those schools is very subpar even with in state tuition for all the reasons mentioned (huge classes, horrible bureaucracy, lack of class community due to limited on-campus housing and constant influx and outflux of students). California parents who live in wealthier areas almost always prefer to send their child to T20-30 private over any UC if kid can get admitted.

Source?

That’s not what their common data set says. Of the 4677 first-time, first-year feshmen who entered UC Berkeley in 2013, 3554 graduated in 4 years (76%). Of the 4127 freshmen who entered UC Berkeley in 2012, 3079 graduated in 4 years — 75%.

https://opa.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/uc_berkeley_cds_2019-20.may.11.2020.xlsx

Maybe you should cite data not from 2012 and 2013?

That is the most recent data available. The data on common data sets includes both 4 and six year graduation rates so anything after that they wouldn’t have that info yet.

[Anonymous]

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%.

[Anonymous]

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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seven sisters schools

Sad but true

Especially the non-Wellesley/Barnard ones. Smith, MoHo, and Bryan Mawr are nothing like the used to be.

Disagree. They are great places to be an interested, curious student.

No one said they’re garbage but instead that they have dimmed which is absolutely true for obvious reasons.

Since the top universities are open to women and have been for decades now, the caliber of student going to a seven sisters school is just lower than it used to be since top students have more options. Most Bryan Mawr students now wouldn’t have gotten in 50 years ago. The women who would have gotten in then, go to Penn now.

Not necessarily true. There are some women who just want the single sex environment.

It’s necessarily true on a population-wide basis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Occidental

You really are relentless, and wrong.

Interesting. I was just about to say the same and I'm a DP and an alum, but believe what you want to believe.

Well, the two kids I know there are getting great educations and are happy.

Do they know about Moody's downgrading the campus financial picture to a negative last December? The endowment is too small to make it through Covid.

Not the immediate PP. You’re a disgruntled alum, yet the Spring giving campaign was a success. The enrollment numbers have been growing year to year—it’s growing in popularity and sought after. Even under current circumstances my DC knows an incoming freshman willing to travel cross country. You do realize fundraising appeals are not inside information, right? We all get them from our schools, they all mention current events.