| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 2008/5/9 [Computer/Companies/Google] UID:49903 Activity:nil |
5/8 Larry and Sergey have grown up:
http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSN0841778920080509 |
| 2008/5/9-15 [Uncategorized] UID:49904 Activity:nil |
5/8 History Channel-- Spanish conquistadors & Carribean fights, etc.
The Spaniards rule!!!
\_ Wait, port Portebello fell to the Bucaneers. Nevermind.
\_ Wait, port Portebello just fell to the Bucaneers. Nevermind. -op
\_ Wasn't The Histroy Channel changed its name to History?
\_ Didn't The Histroy Channel change its name to History? |
| 2008/5/9-15 [Academia/OtherSchools, Academia/StanfUrd] UID:49905 Activity:high |
5/8 UC to raise fees to 18k a year or more:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/07/MN1510D554.DTL
A report released in April by the UC faculty Academic Senate says
the university has not recovered from the budget cuts earlier in the
decade and that the governor's latest 10 percent cut to its budget
will be devastating and force the university to rely more heavily on
student fees and privatization of the university.
To make up the difference, tuition and fees would have to be
increased from the current $7,500 a year to about $10,000
immediately, and to $18,000 in three years to keep the university
from losing its prominence, the report says.
\_ Yeah, privatize everything! Hooray! -Republican
\_ Hi Strawman Guy. It should be obvious to anyone with two brain
cells to rub together that the costs of some services should be
spread across the population while others should not. For
example, vaccinations should be covered and mandatory because
the cost of a plague in lives, suffering, and many other forms
of loss outweighs the cost of a $5 shot for every child. OTOH,
covering your sex change operation or your breast implants is
your problem and provides no societal benefit. Somewhere in
between those two extremes is a reasonable middle ground that
people far more intelligent than a cheap shot troll like
yourself are still trying to find.
\_ Boob jobs don't provide any societal benefit???
\_ No more than your sex change operation.
\_ You must not be motd boob guy.
\_ Definitely not. The 5 minutes a day I spend here
is already too much. I don't compound that error
by following those sorts of links from here.
\_ I don't see a very good reason to subsidize UC. Why not subsidize
all universities? (i.e. subsidize the student, not the school)
Also, why is there both Cal State and UC?
\_ The last question, you could answer with only a moment of
thought or research. Community colleges, Cal State and UC
have different missions and serve different populations.
I think it's safe to say that California gets excellent return
on its investment in UC, if you really want to look at it
from a pure economic perspective. -tom
\_ If it does, then why not make that relationship explicit
in the form of loans?
What is the mission difference with CSU and UC? UC is
just better? I've good things about Cal Poly grads.
\_ read the mission statements, or the state constitution.
-tom
\_ Did you go to Cal? Please make out that check for 50k you
owe the state for your subsidies ASAP, thanks.
\_ Did you? I guess Cal isn't so great if it can't teach
basic logic. Do you really think that I should agree
with something because I supposedly benefitted from it?
I pays me taxes like anyone else. That doesn't mean I
agree with how it is used.
\_ I don't see the logical disconnect. I bet you,
personally, have reaped great rewards from your
California taxpayer subsidized UC education. I
have every right to mock you.
\_ Again: my personally benefitting or not has zero
relevance to the discussion. I would have
benefitted under a general subsidy as well, or
from loans etc., or from a more competitive
private market. Undergrad education is wasteful
as all get out. There is little reason to even
be at Cal for the first two years. The classes
are gigantic and you might near do as well by
or better just watching the class on video.
are gigantic and you might near do as well or
better by just watching classes on video.
My first two Cal years were mainly interesting from
a life/social perspective
\_ We actually do both, right? We provide subsidized loans
and Pell Grants to any student, but we also provide public
schools for those who cannot afford private school, even
with a moderate subsidy. I know it goes against the
libertarian ethos to provide something of value on the
basis of merit, as opposed to the wealth of one's parents,
but that is what the People of California have decided to
do, and I agree with them.
\_ Why not just increase the grant and loan programs?
It's not against my ethos to provide something on merit.
I am fine with private scholarships and there are lots
of those. Communism is against my ethos.
\_ If the loan and grants were distributed equally and
all the UCs were privatized and charged whatever the
market would bear, then poor (and middle class) kids
would be shut out of attending the best schools. You
could fix this by granting additional State funded
scholarships on the basis of merit, but that would be
"Communism" again. I hope you can see how society as
a whole benefits when the brightest get the best
education, as opposed to simply the ones born to the
wealthiest parents. But you probably think working for
the benefit of the greater good is "Communist" as well.
the benefit of the greater good is "Communist" as
well.
\_ Scholarships aren't the form of communism/socialism
I'm referring to here; I'm looking at government
entrance into markets it has no place in. So why
have the public schools at all instead of more
scholarships? Determining who the brightest are
is not clear anyway... I met many dumbasses at Cal.
If loans are guaranteed on favorable terms then
even the poor can attend the best universities.
\_ when did we give the Cato Institute a soda
login? -tom
\_ Brit Humes is good looking!!!
\_ I see your point and don't really disagree with
it. Getting from here to there is kind of hard
though. Just because selecting for potential
ability is difficult doesn't mean we shouldn't
try to do it. People have been doing so at least
somewhat successfully since the time of the
Mandarins.
\_ I believe in Turkmenistan the government actively attempted
to slash education funds in an effort to make the population
stupider (less unrest when you're stupid). They have great success!
Go Turkmen!
\_ Reagan's dream will finally be realized.
\_ Star Wars?
\_ I will say this much. If UC is going to charge the tuition of
a private school then they'd better match private schools in
terms of the educational experience. I put up with a lot of
crap at UC because I realized it was a public school. However,
if was paying $20K per year my expectations would have been
completely different.
ver,
if was paying $20K per year my expectations would have been
completely different.
\_ Bingo! All the Stanford folks I know had an infinitely better
experience and got much more out of it and still do years
after they graduated.
\_ Well, they better for (when I was in school) $100K more.
However, if UC wants to charge like a private then they
need to realize that they can't offer the same product
they offer now.
\_ UC doesn't *want* to charge like a private. UC,
along with every public service offered by the
government, is under assault from corporatist
ideologues; thus, its funding has been repeatedly
cut while costs have been rising, and it is being
forced to raise fees, which, you're right, puts it
in a disadvantageous position relative to comparable
privates, and which in turn is exactly what the
ideologues want. -tom
\_ Wow, been re-reading your Little Red Book a lot
recently? Corporatist ideologues? Can you name a few
of these corporatist ideologues who are out to destroy
the public university system in this state?
\_ Do you feel it would be in a disadvantageous position
relative to comparable privates if it charged the
same as the privates? Because the feeling I get is
that it would be, which is a knock on UC.
\_ How many top private research institutions have
over 200,000 undergraduates? How many campuses
have over 30,000? The problem space is different.
-tom
\_ Is Cal becoming a factory assembly line of
graduates?
\_ Becoming? I thought that was its purpose.
\_ Pick any given campus for your comparison.
\_ How about Stanford? They have something
like 8K undergrads. Their mission is not
to educate the top 12.5% of California high
school students; if it were, Stanford would
be a much different place. UCLA and
Berkeley are #1 and #2 in the country
among top universities in enrolling Pell
Grant (low-income) students as a percentage
of the undergraduate population. (35% and
32%, respectively). That's part of the
charter and mission of UC, and while it makes
the environment more challenging to manage,
I also think it's part of what makes UC a great
institution. -tom
\_ How would you know UC is a great educational
institution? Did you ever attend a UC
class? Where is your 4 year degree from?
\_ I see you're out of arguments. -tom
\_ Why is it more "challenging to manage"
low income students? They are still
among the best and brightest.
\_ Dozens of reasons. They have unusual
schedules and take longer to graduate
because they're working while going to
school, or they have to take time off
to help their family. They are often
the first person in their family to
go to college, so their family can't
provide them as much advice or support,
and in many cases doesn't value
higher education in the same way that
a fourth-generation Harvard family
does. There's overhead in dealing
with their patched-together financial
aid package and work-study awards. -tom
\_ I don't think any of these reasons
have to do with why students at
private schools are treated well
and students at UC are treated like
crap in comparison. Kids at private
schools are likely to receive
financial aid as well from many
sources. Just because some kids are
low income doesn't mean they create
much more overhead. MIT or Stanford
will take the best students they can
get - wealthy or not - and still
provide better experiences for
students because they have to in order
to compete against Caltech and
Princeton for your (or the
government's) dollars, while UC gets
the money (and the students) no matter
what. Sure, UC might compete for some
of the best students but judging
by the scholarships awarded they
don't compete very hard. Overall,
UC seems to feel you need them
more than they need you, which is
not the situation at private
schools where every student is an
extra $30K a year. That's one reason
why privates don't fail people out.
It's like tossing away $30K.
\_ look, it's simple; exceptions are
expensive, and low-income students
generate more exceptions. For
that matter, there are diseconomies
of scale in managing students when
one class is as large as the
entire enrollment of Stanford.
The student experience of being
in an 800-person Bio 1B class
will not be the same as the
experience of being in a 200-person
class. The institutions are not
directly comparable because their
missions and resultant environments
are totally different. -tom
\_ Why not look at a small UC
campus and compare to Stanford?
You may be correct that the
missions are different, but
consider the disincentives
UC has to do any better. As
far as "exceptions" I am
going to guess there are
more made at private
schools. UC is very much a
"no exceptions" environment
whereas at private schools
every single student is
treated like an exception.
\_ I'm willing to bet that by
any metric you can devise,
Cal is more diverse than
Stanford.
\_ *LAUGH* you talk as if
diversity is a good
thing that everyone
loves to have *LAUGH*
Take a look at Denmark
and Irvine. Economically
and socially homogenous
and nice to live.
\_ Shut up white man
\_ Asians tend to stick
to communities or
*towns of their kind
\_ What does that have
to do with anything?
Most high-caliber schools
are actually pretty
diverse, but are you
somehow implying that
diversity == crappy
administration,
staff, and policies
or that somehow
having many races of
people on campus
therefore makes it
more expensive to operate
and makes the environment
more hostile to
undergrads? Where are you
heading with this
argument?
\_ I don't mean ethnic
diversity (although
that's clearly also
true). I mean that
Berkeley has more
non-traditional-age
students, more students
who take time off to
work, more work-study
students, more
community college
transfers than
Stanford. All those
populations are
more expensive to
manage. And 32K
undergrads are more
expensive to manage
than 8K undergrads.
-tom
\_ I'm not convinced
on your last point.
Why should that be
the case?
\_ Find me an
institution with
32K undergrads
that doesn't
have a huge
bureaucracy. -tom
\_ Just compare
UCB and USC.
It's not
like USC
doesn't have
bureaucracy,
but the
experience is
much, much
better. You
believe what
you believe
because you've
worked at UCB
so long and
been
indoctrinated
into the
"that's the
way it has to
be" mentality.
It doesn't.
UC sucks
even compared
to some other
large schools
like Texas
and UVA.
\_ USC is half
the size of
Berkeley,
and less
than 10%
of the size
of UC. -tom
\_ USC is
almost
exactly
the same
size but
has more
faculty
and
staff,
which
is one
reason it
makes for
happier
alumni.
USC has 15K undergrads, _/
less than half of Cal. -tom
And small UC campuses don't
compete with Stanford. I
know a lot of people who
were quite happy at Santa
Cruz, but it's not a top
research university. -tom
\_ UC is UC. My gf went
to UCSC and it's the
same crap everywhere.
Also don't tell the UCSC
PhDs in programs like
astrophysics and
linguistics (both Top
10 in the nation) that
it's not a "top research
university". You know as
much about UCSC as you do
about everything else
that's not related to
biking.
"UCSC astrophysicists, for
example, were recently
ranked first in a survey
measuring the impact of
research on the field."
http://tinyurl.com/57wcfy
UCSC is a top research
university and at the same
time schools like Harvey
Mudd are not, but we're
not talking about
research. We're discussing
undergrad education. UC is
great for the price, but
if the price becomes $20K
I'm sending my kids
somewhere else.
\_ UCSC has *one*
department which is
a top research
department, and that's
because they made the
guys who used to live
up at Lick Observatory
come down to teach
at UCSC. There is no
comparison between
the research done at
UCSC and Berkeley,
UCLA, Stanford, or any
of the other top
research institutions.
UCSC's purpose isn't
to be a top research
institution. There's
really no point
in continuing this
conversation if you
don't understand that.
-tom
\_ *THREE* top 25
departments and
more that are
still good. They
just got money
for a stem cell
research center.
They do a lot of
world-class research
in biology and
ecology. UCSC, by
virtue of offering
PhD programs at all,
is engaged in
research.
Your arguments don't
hold water. Every UC
is engaged in
world-class research,
not just UCB and
UCLA. I'm not
sure why this
matters anyway
when discussing
undergrads.
Your point seems to
be that UC ignores
ugrads in favor of
research, which is
exactly my beef with
it.
\_ My point is that
UCSC and Stanford
are not
comparable
institutions,
any more than
Berkeley and
De Vry are.
They are not
competeing for
the same students
or the same
faculty. -tom
\_ My point
is that
UCSC still
sucks for
students
even though
it's not
"large and
diverse"
because it's
still UC.
\_ prove it.
-tom
\_ let's
make
this
as
nar-
row
as
pos-
ib-
le
\_ Did
you
attend
UC?
Were
you
happy?
Yes, but that proves nothing. -tom _/
\__ Does Cal or UCLA make money from enrolling out-of-state and
international students? If so, maybe that's one way to help the
financial situation. (I think it doesn't get government subsidy
for those students.)
\_ no.
\_ No, but they charge them a hell of a lot more.
\_ They money all goes to the UC Regents. Did you ever pay your
own fees?
\_ Yes, I wrote lots of checks payable to UC Regents. But I
thought that was just for accounting purpose. -- PP |
| 2008/5/9 [Uncategorized] UID:49907 Activity:nil |
5/8 Who decided it was "death to 'r's day"? |
| 2008/5/9-15 [Health/Women] UID:49922 Activity:low |
5/9 Discovery Channel holding contest to name new Duggar baby.
"Michelle Duggar, female head of the Dugger household, has been
pregnant for 135 months of her life."
\_ http://farm1.static.flickr.com/89/249270409_664e6841fa.jpg
\_ I guess at least taxpayers are not footing the bill for raising
their children.
\_ They might be. The father avoids the question of how he
makes enough money to support all of his children.
\_ Damn. Mandatory castration is in order.
\_ How dare he keep personal details private! Where's Stalin
when you need him?!
\_ Guiness World of Record baby!
\_ I think motd castration guy is commenting on the fact
the dude has 20 kids, not that he won't release his tax
returns.
\_ Guinness World of Record baby! |
| 2008/5/9 [Uncategorized] UID:49923 Activity:moderate |
5/9 New Winter pics found:
http://www.filemojo.com/01888982130902/winter.rar
\_ Jesus christ. |
| 2008/5/9-15 [Uncategorized] UID:49924 Activity:nil |
5/9 MOTD cleansed. - r liberation front. |
| 2008/5/9-15 [Computer/SW/OS/VM] UID:49925 Activity:nil |
5/9 Do any sodalites work at VMWare? If so, please contact me as
I have a question about scaling to ask you. -ausman
\_ Tell us how scaling will affect the housing market! |
| 2008/5/9-15 [Recreation/Dating, Reference/Religion] UID:49926 Activity:nil |
5/9 god i love burritos
\_ AND?
\_ http://tinyurl.com/6gyele |
| 11/22 |