Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can totally understand why these tech companies rather hire H1B (foreign educated tech workers) or even outsource the jobs.

Even the discussion here show people naive about the need for solid STEM foundation in education.

There's not much connection. Presumably, those getting 4 year degrees should be trained. It is the fault, then, of universities, not the k-12 system.

4 yrs of university can not make up for a poor k-12 foundation, and that is exactly the point of the UC professors. it should not be their job to teach the missing foundation.

huh? What kind of revisionist trash is this? The UCs have always had people from all walks of life, who all did not receive an elite foundation. You can 100% start off on shaky territory and build yourself up to a competent professional; in fact, that is how much of my peers at Berkeley got through their engineering degree! It's so sad how much people here want to trap poor people into worse conditions, worse schooling, and worse opportunities.

No, that’s what CC and Calstates are for. if you lack the foundation, get it at CC (where focus is on teaching anyway) and then transfer to UC to finish the degree. What is the point of admitting undergrads who need so much remedial work that they can’t make use of all the research resources anyway? the current shambles is different from past generations. we’re talking needing remediation of MIDDLE school
Math. Its a complete joke and UC are going to be a laughingstock if they don’t take swift steps to save their reputation. for a little history lesson, check out what happened to
City College of NYC in the 1960s.

UCs have been accepting students from low performing high schools in California for decades. Why should people from low performing high schools be barred from research universities?

Also, it's so weird that people can admit that community college students do fine, when community college students often have triple digit SAT scores.

High performing students from low performing schools shouldn't be barred, and wouldn't be under a test-required environment.

Low performing students, be they from high or low performing schools, should be barred from top UCs where they will perform poorly and likely delay graduation and possibly drop out with five figures in debt, and instead be directed to Cal States where the standards aren't quite so demanding and the university environment is tailored to teaching the kids (rather than expecting the kids to more or less self-teach the material)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can totally understand why these tech companies rather hire H1B (foreign educated tech workers) or even outsource the jobs.

Even the discussion here show people naive about the need for solid STEM foundation in education.

There's not much connection. Presumably, those getting 4 year degrees should be trained. It is the fault, then, of universities, not the k-12 system.

4 yrs of university can not make up for a poor k-12 foundation, and that is exactly the point of the UC professors. it should not be their job to teach the missing foundation.

huh? What kind of revisionist trash is this? The UCs have always had people from all walks of life, who all did not receive an elite foundation. You can 100% start off on shaky territory and build yourself up to a competent professional; in fact, that is how much of my peers at Berkeley got through their engineering degree! It's so sad how much people here want to trap poor people into worse conditions, worse schooling, and worse opportunities.

Nah not the poor but the under qualified

You don't have to pretend like you are being in anyway open to accepting poor people. We get it. You were pretty crystal clear that you are antagonizing poor people. Just saying "underqualified" doesn't mean much when I know you think the issue is the expansion of admissions towards lower performing high schools.

Great keep distracting the issue from the actual problem. Typical tactic

Tell me how the "actual problem" doesn't just coalesce to people from low income backgrounds. What profile do you mean then when you say "low performing?" I am just trying to keep us honest and real here.

The profile they're referring to is a student of any income group and any race that is unable to demonstrate mastery of basic middle and high school mathematics.

There are plenty of poor students who are high-performing, and they deserve to have the opportunity to shine without needing to be hyper-savvy to whatever the current EC metagame is.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Make a post when the regents actually listen and Berkeley is test required. Berkeley undergrad has never really been Stanford…

Yet it was Stanford Professor, Jo Boaler, that set the state standards leading to the current math crisis in CA (and beyond). Where is the accountability? She falsified studies, scammed schools to hear about her flawed studies watering down math elementary and high school math standards (over the objection of parents and teachers), but remains a well-paid prof at Stanford?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can totally understand why these tech companies rather hire H1B (foreign educated tech workers) or even outsource the jobs.

Even the discussion here show people naive about the need for solid STEM foundation in education.

There's not much connection. Presumably, those getting 4 year degrees should be trained. It is the fault, then, of universities, not the k-12 system.

4 yrs of university can not make up for a poor k-12 foundation, and that is exactly the point of the UC professors. it should not be their job to teach the missing foundation.

huh? What kind of revisionist trash is this? The UCs have always had people from all walks of life, who all did not receive an elite foundation. You can 100% start off on shaky territory and build yourself up to a competent professional; in fact, that is how much of my peers at Berkeley got through their engineering degree! It's so sad how much people here want to trap poor people into worse conditions, worse schooling, and worse opportunities.

Nah not the poor but the under qualified

You don't have to pretend like you are being in anyway open to accepting poor people. We get it. You were pretty crystal clear that you are antagonizing poor people. Just saying "underqualified" doesn't mean much when I know you think the issue is the expansion of admissions towards lower performing high schools.

Great keep distracting the issue from the actual problem. Typical tactic

Tell me how the "actual problem" doesn't just coalesce to people from low income backgrounds. What profile do you mean then when you say "low performing?" I am just trying to keep us honest and real here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can totally understand why these tech companies rather hire H1B (foreign educated tech workers) or even outsource the jobs.

Even the discussion here show people naive about the need for solid STEM foundation in education.

There's not much connection. Presumably, those getting 4 year degrees should be trained. It is the fault, then, of universities, not the k-12 system.

4 yrs of university can not make up for a poor k-12 foundation, and that is exactly the point of the UC professors. it should not be their job to teach the missing foundation.

huh? What kind of revisionist trash is this? The UCs have always had people from all walks of life, who all did not receive an elite foundation. You can 100% start off on shaky territory and build yourself up to a competent professional; in fact, that is how much of my peers at Berkeley got through their engineering degree! It's so sad how much people here want to trap poor people into worse conditions, worse schooling, and worse opportunities.

No, that’s what CC and Calstates are for. if you lack the foundation, get it at CC (where focus is on teaching anyway) and then transfer to UC to finish the degree. What is the point of admitting undergrads who need so much remedial work that they can’t make use of all the research resources anyway? the current shambles is different from past generations. we’re talking needing remediation of MIDDLE school
Math. Its a complete joke and UC are going to be a laughingstock if they don’t take swift steps to save their reputation. for a little history lesson, check out what happened to
City College of NYC in the 1960s.

UCs have been accepting students from low performing high schools in California for decades. Why should people from low performing high schools be barred from research universities?

Also, it's so weird that people can admit that community college students do fine, when community college students often have triple digit SAT scores.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can totally understand why these tech companies rather hire H1B (foreign educated tech workers) or even outsource the jobs.

Even the discussion here show people naive about the need for solid STEM foundation in education.

There's not much connection. Presumably, those getting 4 year degrees should be trained. It is the fault, then, of universities, not the k-12 system.

4 yrs of university can not make up for a poor k-12 foundation, and that is exactly the point of the UC professors. it should not be their job to teach the missing foundation.

huh? What kind of revisionist trash is this? The UCs have always had people from all walks of life, who all did not receive an elite foundation. You can 100% start off on shaky territory and build yourself up to a competent professional; in fact, that is how much of my peers at Berkeley got through their engineering degree! It's so sad how much people here want to trap poor people into worse conditions, worse schooling, and worse opportunities.

Nah not the poor but the under qualified

You don't have to pretend like you are being in anyway open to accepting poor people. We get it. You were pretty crystal clear that you are antagonizing poor people. Just saying "underqualified" doesn't mean much when I know you think the issue is the expansion of admissions towards lower performing high schools.

Great keep distracting the issue from the actual problem. Typical tactic

Tell me how the "actual problem" doesn't just coalesce to people from low income backgrounds. What profile do you mean then when you say "low performing?" I am just trying to keep us honest and real here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can totally understand why these tech companies rather hire H1B (foreign educated tech workers) or even outsource the jobs.

Even the discussion here show people naive about the need for solid STEM foundation in education.

There's not much connection. Presumably, those getting 4 year degrees should be trained. It is the fault, then, of universities, not the k-12 system.

4 yrs of university can not make up for a poor k-12 foundation, and that is exactly the point of the UC professors. it should not be their job to teach the missing foundation.

huh? What kind of revisionist trash is this? The UCs have always had people from all walks of life, who all did not receive an elite foundation. You can 100% start off on shaky territory and build yourself up to a competent professional; in fact, that is how much of my peers at Berkeley got through their engineering degree! It's so sad how much people here want to trap poor people into worse conditions, worse schooling, and worse opportunities.

Nah not the poor but the under qualified

You don't have to pretend like you are being in anyway open to accepting poor people. We get it. You were pretty crystal clear that you are antagonizing poor people. Just saying "underqualified" doesn't mean much when I know you think the issue is the expansion of admissions towards lower performing high schools.

Low performing is just as simple as not able to perform at the grade level. Why is that so hard to understand? Do you think there is no poor people in other countries? How come they don't have problem learning math? Tell you what? Stop giving yourself excuse and try to study and find your strength in different subjects is not that hard.



Great keep distracting the issue from the actual problem. Typical tactic

Tell me how the "actual problem" doesn't just coalesce to people from low income backgrounds. What profile do you mean then when you say "low performing?" I am just trying to keep us honest and real here.

Anonymous wrote:Make a post when the regents actually listen and Berkeley is test required. Berkeley undergrad has never really been Stanford…

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can totally understand why these tech companies rather hire H1B (foreign educated tech workers) or even outsource the jobs.

Even the discussion here show people naive about the need for solid STEM foundation in education.

There's not much connection. Presumably, those getting 4 year degrees should be trained. It is the fault, then, of universities, not the k-12 system.

4 yrs of university can not make up for a poor k-12 foundation, and that is exactly the point of the UC professors. it should not be their job to teach the missing foundation.

huh? What kind of revisionist trash is this? The UCs have always had people from all walks of life, who all did not receive an elite foundation. You can 100% start off on shaky territory and build yourself up to a competent professional; in fact, that is how much of my peers at Berkeley got through their engineering degree! It's so sad how much people here want to trap poor people into worse conditions, worse schooling, and worse opportunities.

No, that’s what CC and Calstates are for. if you lack the foundation, get it at CC (where focus is on teaching anyway) and then transfer to UC to finish the degree. What is the point of admitting undergrads who need so much remedial work that they can’t make use of all the research resources anyway? the current shambles is different from past generations. we’re talking needing remediation of MIDDLE school
Math. Its a complete joke and UC are going to be a laughingstock if they don’t take swift steps to save their reputation. for a little history lesson, check out what happened to
City College of NYC in the 1960s.

UCs have been accepting students from low performing high schools in California for decades. Why should people from low performing high schools be barred from research universities?

Also, it's so weird that people can admit that community college students do fine, when community college students often have triple digit SAT scores.

Back when UCs used standardized tests they could verify that a smart student from a low performing high school had the preparation to be able to succeed at UC. Now there is no outside verification through a standardized test and rampant grade inflation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can totally understand why these tech companies rather hire H1B (foreign educated tech workers) or even outsource the jobs.

Even the discussion here show people naive about the need for solid STEM foundation in education.

There's not much connection. Presumably, those getting 4 year degrees should be trained. It is the fault, then, of universities, not the k-12 system.

4 yrs of university can not make up for a poor k-12 foundation, and that is exactly the point of the UC professors. it should not be their job to teach the missing foundation.

huh? What kind of revisionist trash is this? The UCs have always had people from all walks of life, who all did not receive an elite foundation. You can 100% start off on shaky territory and build yourself up to a competent professional; in fact, that is how much of my peers at Berkeley got through their engineering degree! It's so sad how much people here want to trap poor people into worse conditions, worse schooling, and worse opportunities.

Nah not the poor but the under qualified

You don't have to pretend like you are being in anyway open to accepting poor people. We get it. You were pretty crystal clear that you are antagonizing poor people. Just saying "underqualified" doesn't mean much when I know you think the issue is the expansion of admissions towards lower performing high schools.

Great keep distracting the issue from the actual problem. Typical tactic

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can totally understand why these tech companies rather hire H1B (foreign educated tech workers) or even outsource the jobs.

Even the discussion here show people naive about the need for solid STEM foundation in education.

There's not much connection. Presumably, those getting 4 year degrees should be trained. It is the fault, then, of universities, not the k-12 system.

4 yrs of university can not make up for a poor k-12 foundation, and that is exactly the point of the UC professors. it should not be their job to teach the missing foundation.

huh? What kind of revisionist trash is this? The UCs have always had people from all walks of life, who all did not receive an elite foundation. You can 100% start off on shaky territory and build yourself up to a competent professional; in fact, that is how much of my peers at Berkeley got through their engineering degree! It's so sad how much people here want to trap poor people into worse conditions, worse schooling, and worse opportunities.

Nah not the poor but the under qualified

You don't have to pretend like you are being in anyway open to accepting poor people. We get it. You were pretty crystal clear that you are antagonizing poor people. Just saying "underqualified" doesn't mean much when I know you think the issue is the expansion of admissions towards lower performing high schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can totally understand why these tech companies rather hire H1B (foreign educated tech workers) or even outsource the jobs.

Even the discussion here show people naive about the need for solid STEM foundation in education.

There's not much connection. Presumably, those getting 4 year degrees should be trained. It is the fault, then, of universities, not the k-12 system.

4 yrs of university can not make up for a poor k-12 foundation, and that is exactly the point of the UC professors. it should not be their job to teach the missing foundation.

huh? What kind of revisionist trash is this? The UCs have always had people from all walks of life, who all did not receive an elite foundation. You can 100% start off on shaky territory and build yourself up to a competent professional; in fact, that is how much of my peers at Berkeley got through their engineering degree! It's so sad how much people here want to trap poor people into worse conditions, worse schooling, and worse opportunities.

No, that’s what CC and Calstates are for. if you lack the foundation, get it at CC (where focus is on teaching anyway) and then transfer to UC to finish the degree. What is the point of admitting undergrads who need so much remedial work that they can’t make use of all the research resources anyway? the current shambles is different from past generations. we’re talking needing remediation of MIDDLE school
Math. Its a complete joke and UC are going to be a laughingstock if they don’t take swift steps to save their reputation. for a little history lesson, check out what happened to
City College of NYC in the 1960s.

UCs have been accepting students from low performing high schools in California for decades. Why should people from low performing high schools be barred from research universities?

Also, it's so weird that people can admit that community college students do fine, when community college students often have triple digit SAT scores.

In the past year a full-blown conservative reaction, exemplified by Dinesh D’Souza’s Illiberal Education, has depicted the new claims of ethnic pluralism precisely as a liberal or radical plot. In its most mechanical form, the conservative argument pictures elite colleges as admitting unqualified students through affirmative action. These students, once there, lower standards, frustrate faculty, and develop an ideology of cultural separatism to justify their own incompetence. The demand for more representative or non-traditional curricula is one more, mostly illegitimate, offshoot of their presence on campus. Affirmative action is thus the source of a new and sinister ideology called “multiculturalism,” which undermines not only higher education but also the very cohesion of America.

The tragedy of this attack is that it treats complex demographic shifts as if they were merely manufactured by ideologues. In California, New York, Texas, and elsewhere, good-faith efforts by college administrators to accommodate these shifts, often with quite dissimilar strategies, now carry a similar political burden. The further tragedy is that this attack has polarized discussion of such profoundly important and subtle questions as who shall be educated, what is worthy of study, how to conceive of “merit,” and how best to reconcile diversity, achievement, democracy, and nationhood.

Since 1964, admission to the University of California has been structured by a legislatively adopted Master Plan. Entering students must be in the top one-eighth of their graduating class. That requirement translates into a 3.25 grade point average (B plus) for students in California’s 1200 high schools. In the actual admissions process, students must also have taken a series of specific high school courses, and done well on their SAT’s. These measures are combined in an “academic index,” and used at all U.C. campuses. The overwhelming majority of racial and ethnic minority admissions at Berkeley are drawn from this top one-eighth eligibility pool, yet a common misconception is that most minority students do not meet the published criteria.

One charge is that many minority students, African Americans in particular, may technically qualify because they receive good grades from mediocre high schools. But whatever the case in other states, minority applicants who qualify for the University of California are not drawn primarily from racially isolated inner city schools; many, if not most, are drawn from high schools that are already extraordinarily diverse. Furthermore, the State of California’s Post-Secondary Education Commission continually audits the University’s admissions procedures and the comparability of high school coursework, to ensure compliance with denned criteria.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can totally understand why these tech companies rather hire H1B (foreign educated tech workers) or even outsource the jobs.

Even the discussion here show people naive about the need for solid STEM foundation in education.

There's not much connection. Presumably, those getting 4 year degrees should be trained. It is the fault, then, of universities, not the k-12 system.

4 yrs of university can not make up for a poor k-12 foundation, and that is exactly the point of the UC professors. it should not be their job to teach the missing foundation.

huh? What kind of revisionist trash is this? The UCs have always had people from all walks of life, who all did not receive an elite foundation. You can 100% start off on shaky territory and build yourself up to a competent professional; in fact, that is how much of my peers at Berkeley got through their engineering degree! It's so sad how much people here want to trap poor people into worse conditions, worse schooling, and worse opportunities.

No, that’s what CC and Calstates are for. if you lack the foundation, get it at CC (where focus is on teaching anyway) and then transfer to UC to finish the degree. What is the point of admitting undergrads who need so much remedial work that they can’t make use of all the research resources anyway? the current shambles is different from past generations. we’re talking needing remediation of MIDDLE school
Math. Its a complete joke and UC are going to be a laughingstock if they don’t take swift steps to save their reputation. for a little history lesson, check out what happened to
City College of NYC in the 1960s.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The scary thing about what is happening to UCLA, Berkeley, UCI, UCSD, etc. is that STEM professors have objective data of the deficits and mediocrity of the students. But what about the reading comprehension and writing skills of these same students?

https://caaspp-elpac.ets.org/caaspp/DashViewReportSB?ps=true&lstTestYear=2025&lstTestType=B&lstGroup=1&lstSubGroup=1&lstSchoolType=A&lstGrade=13&lstCounty=00&lstDistrict=00000&lstSchool=0000000

The majority of California's public school students are below grade level across all metrics. The race to mediocrity is being won both by its high schools and the UC system. Imagine getting a Berkeley graduate who can't do high school math and can't read or write at the 11th grade level?

It appears Forbes was correct to exclude CA public schools from its “New Ivy” list. I am glad my DD was not interested in the west coast this admissions cycle. Had no idea how far the CA public schools had fallen academically.

Your daughter wouldn’t have gotten in.

She was admitted to a more selective T10. A school where kids are universally strong at math. Thanks for the input!