Decreasing in Quality

[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.

UVA is 94% as of 2018. https://www.cappex.com/articles/blog/government-publishes-graduation-rate-data

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But necessary only because of COVID and after many pleas to many alums who refuse to give to the college because it has mismanaged its affairs for decades. Moody's downgraded it last December. Compare Oxy's endowment to its old competition Pomona. And compare Oxy's selectivity to Pomona's. There's no comparison anymore and they once were competitors. https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-revises-Occidental-Colleges-CA-outlook-to-negative-assigns-Aa3--PR_906060735

[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.

UVA is 94% as of 2018. https://www.cappex.com/articles/blog/government-publishes-graduation-rate-data

That is 6 year. 4 year was 89%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous[b wrote:]I don't know how someone has not mentioned UVA. Little STEM[/b]. The VA schools with strong STEM just keep getting stronger.

This is such a weird/incorrect comment since UVa is a tier-one research university with extensive undergraduate and graduate programs in sciences, engineering, math, and medicine funded by vast funding and resources. If anything, the educational emphasis at UVa has shifted to stem fields in the last twenty-years to reflect the social/economic emphasis on these fields.

But UVA has a very low percentage of graduates majoring in STEM fields compared to other top schools. Vast funding and resources is also inaccurate if you are doing a comparison.

Here is a list of top 20 national universities plus top 5 national LACs plus selected publics (Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, Texas, UVA) ranked by percentage of students in CS, Engineering, Physical Sciences, Bio/Life Sciences, and Math/Statistics:

University Total
Caltech 98%
MIT 89%
Stanford 50%
Duke 48%
Princeton 47%
Harvard 46%
Swarthmore 44%
Cornell 44%
Rice 42%
WashU 41%
Michigan 41%
Pomona 40%
Berkeley 36%
Brown 36%
Williams 35%
Northwestern 34%
Amherst 34%
Texas 34%
Wellesley 33%
Yale 33%
UCLA 33%
Notre Dame 33%
Dartmouth 32%
Vanderbilt 31%
Penn 30%
UVA 27%

Did it ever occur to you that UVA doesn't need more STEM because Virginia has Virginia Tech? And we also have William & Mary for the smaller LAC experience. Then there are all the other Virginia universities to select from.

It occurs to me that UVA would probably like to compare itself to many of the schools above it in the list. I'm pretty sure the last several presidents have had their eyes on similar numbers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pomona, for sure.

Pomona decreasing in quality?

That PP has an ax to grind, clearly.

Or is currently sitting on the Pomona waitlist...

[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%.

For large public universities it is good. UVA is 89%.

Going down the list of top 25 USNews public colleges:
UCLA - 77%
UCB - 75%
Michigan - 79%
UVA - 89%
Georgia Tech - 40%
UNC - 82%
UCSB - 70%
University of Florida - 68%
UC Irvine - 68%
UC San Diego - 62%
UC Davis - 61%
William and Mary - 85%
Wisconsin - 62%
Illinois - 70%
Texas - 61%
Georgia - 66%
Ohio State - 59%
Florida State - 66%
Penn State - 66%
Purdue - 56%
Pitt - 65%
Rutgers - 61%
University of Washington - 67%
Umass - 71%
UMD - 70%
UConn - 73%

Now, if PP wanted to make the argument that she wouldn’t send her kid to large publics as a whole because their graduate rates tend to be lower than privates, that would be fair. But to single out the UC schools as having low graduation rates is an argument that does not hold water. It’s a large public school thing, not a UC school thing.

This would lead you to believe that Georgia Tech is the worst and has the worst students. I believe they now have the highest average SAT scores of all public universities, so perhaps we need to take into account degree of difficulty?

It mainly has to do with the prevalence of engineering/STEM majors, I think, of which Georgia Tech is made up almost entirely.

My kid is an engineering major and it is super common for them to take 4 1/2 or 5 years to graduate as they frequently do co-ops that take them off campus for a semester or even a whole year. Also, the engineering courses at least at his school are very sequenced and so if you fail one that sets you back big time. Purdue is another school that is suuuper heavy on engineers so not surprising that they have a lower grad rate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least two of the Pomona consortium got caught cheating the us news ranking and were kicked out of the ranking game for several years each. These people know how to cheat. They know how it’s done. They are pros.

Claremont McKenna. But why single them out? That list includes Emory, Berkeley, Temple, Oklahoma, Bucknell, Tulane, George Washington, etc.

So the Pomona Consortium chested bc a few others are also cheating? It’s not only Claremont McKenna. There’s another of its consortium that got cheated - and got caught. Most criminals shape up after they get caught once. They know they are being watched. It’s the stupid criminals that get caught twice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know how someone has not mentioned UVA. Little STEM. The VA schools with strong STEM just keep getting stronger.

Not UVA affiliated, but that's a weird take. Why would STEM percentage be equated with decreasing quality? You could have no STEM and still be improving quality of what you offer. Is Julliard decreasing in quality because of their STEM percentage?

Exactly. Besides, Virginia has Virginia Tech. UVA is doing just fine It's getting more and more difficult every year to get in and that will now increase even more as parents realize what a hit their college savings accounts took during COVID.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.[/qquote] If all is so well and good there then why is selectivity so high, the endowment so small compared to Pomona, and why was the entire football season scrapped two years ago due to lack of funds? A lot of these SLACs aren't going to make it. Several have already shuttered.

[Anonymous]

Sweet Briar = won't make it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know how someone has not mentioned UVA. Little STEM. The VA schools with strong STEM just keep getting stronger.

Not UVA affiliated, but that's a weird take. Why would STEM percentage be equated with decreasing quality? You could have no STEM and still be improving quality of what you offer. Is Julliard decreasing in quality because of their STEM percentage?

Exactly. Besides, Virginia has Virginia Tech. UVA is doing just fine It's getting more and more difficult every year to get in and that will now increase even more as parents realize what a hit their college savings accounts took during COVID.

Juilliard is a conservatory. No one would expect it to do STEM. UVA is a University.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All LACs below the top 20

That excludes West Point, Harvey Mudd, and Barnard. Otherwise I agree

Bullshit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Any of the SLACs charging 80K+ a year. Things are a changin'

$75k and up all-in

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is charging 80K? I remember being shocked at 72K two years ago!!

Almost all the SLACs. GO to the "cost of attending" page and add everything up. My Slac is now $83K a year. This doesn't pertain to instate schools.

At the tippy top privates, only about half of the kids are paying sticker price.

And at least 30 - 35% are getting free riders.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is charging 80K? I remember being shocked at 72K two years ago!!

Almost all the SLACs. GO to the "cost of attending" page and add everything up. My Slac is now $83K a year. This doesn't pertain to instate schools.

At the tippy top privates, only about half of the kids are paying sticker price.

This. It's a high-cost, high-discount model that's been in place for years.

The people it screws is those who make $250,000 so would never get FA but can’t afford to pay 80k a year for school. Those people are the ones whose kids go to UMD.

Exactly. If they can get in! Otherwise you chase merit aid.