10/11   How a secret backroom deal between The Governor and
        The Chancellor have sealed the UC into a permanent low
        level of funding:
        http://www.csua.org/u/jpe
        \_ So, bad as this is, 2011 is not "permanent."
        \_ Um, bad as this is, 2011 is not "permanent."
           \_ While I don't support op or the article's editorials, the way
              I read it, the author is pushing the idea that by 2011, UC
              system may have lost much of what made it great, making it
              difficult, though probably not "permanent" to regain its
              excellence and status. I mean, would you have decided to come
              to Cal if you had to pay 10-15k tuition a year to attend
              a university where half of the classes are taught by TAs and
              faculty members were mediocre? You'd have to throw a lot more
              money at the problem if it ever gets that bad to fix it.
              \_ how is that different from most research universities
                 including most of private ones? TAs for most part "teach"
                 the discussion sections only. The only class that I had
                 including most of private ones? At Cal, TAs for most part
                 "teach" the discussion sections only. The only class that I had
                 that was entirely taught by a grad student was RHET 1A/B.
                 When research universities hire new faculty, no one really
                 cares whether the candidate is a good teacher anyways. It's
                 all about research. That's the reality of the US research
                 universities, and I kind of like it, because it teaches people
                 to fend for themselves and not to expect to be spoonfed
                 all the time.
                 "teach" the discussion sections only. The only class that
                 I had that was entirely taught by a grad student was RHET
                 1A/B. When research universities hire new faculty, no one
                 really cares whether the candidate is a good teacher
                 anyways. It's all about research. That's the reality of
                 the US research universities, and I kind of like it,
                 because it teaches people to fend for themselves and not
                 to expect to be spoonfed all the time.
                 \_ TAs leading discussion section is fine, but at least
                    at when I last took summer sessions years back, many
                    summer sessions were taught by non-professors. I also
                    agree with you in that one of the stronger teaching tool
                    present at Cal compared to, say, Stanford, is the "fend
                    for themselves" nature. It may just be that I'm not as
                    capable as you are, but I do wish there was a just a tad
                    more hand-holding for me when I was an undergrad. That
                    aside, even if as a college-bound high school student or
                    a parent of one, if you had to pay similar amount of
                    tuition to send yourself/kid to a "public" school with
                    the "fend for yourself" mentality or a private school,
                    would the choice have been easy to make? And what if
                    there weren't even good *research* faculties at this
                    public school? I mean, why did you choose Cal, instead of,
                    say, Irvine or other UC's? Quality of faculty, regardless
                    of whether or not they're good teachers, matter. And the
                    article is suggesting that we are losing out on bid for
                    quality faculty members due to lack of funds. -pp