Where do we go from here? Rant on.

2,929 Views | 32 Replies | Last: 2 mo ago by wifeisafurd
BearlyCareAnymore
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I know many are justifiably upset at the targeting non-call. Cal absolutely should file whatever complaints they can file and be clear they are filing them. I don't need or want them to go off on this. It is not the long term problem.

What Cal needs to man up about is taking responsibility for the program. Its past, its current state, and its future. And it needs to come from Lyons. Though he isn't responsible for the current state, he needs to make clear that it isn't acceptable and he is taking full responsibility going forward.

The thing they need to man up about is that the students and fans have brought their A games all year culminating in yesterday and have shown they want and deserve a top program. The message needs to be yesterday will never be allowed to happen ever again. For one day, Cal was on top and had the chance to take this moment. From now on we will seize these moments as a program.

Because the thing is, being program that fails in the spotlight is the program Cal is and has been for a long time. Yes, everyone should be upset at the call. Yes, maybe with it Cal preserves victory and has one of its biggest days in recent history.

Yes, it could have been huge - maybe gotten us some recruits. Certainly won a bunch of new fans. Gotten us tons of attention. And importantly given Cal fans something they haven't had in a long time.

But the reality of the situation is the fundamentals of the program aren't there to back any of this up. Without a change to the fundamentals of the program, its attitude, its aims, its execution, disappointment was always going to follow, whether it was crashing and burning immediately like last night, failing to follow it up the rest of the season as has characterized Wilcox's regime, or a repeat of the Tedford era where you reach new heights and slowly watch the program degrade over years.

Because Tedford didn't suddenly become an idiot and no,it wasn't his health. He was the right coach for the moment. But the fundamentals of the Cal program created a situation where Tedford, like every modern era coach before or since, was paddling upstream against a current. There is only so long you can overcome that before the current overtakes you.

We get mad and want to fire the coach. We get really mad and want to fire the athletic director. It never works because that is a small part of the solution. Successful programs have that current in reverse. Sometimes they even hire mediocre coaches who just hang on to the boat and let the current take them to success. Good coaches for them make the difference between 10 and 12 wins. Great coaches for us make the difference between 3 wins and 10. 10 wins is their floor. 10 wins is our ceiling. That is the program. That is the fundamentals.

We are busy chasing wins without chasing fundamental change. "Winning cures everything" is a bullshyte statement because you don't control winning. You control how you prepare and execute. We have been acting like winning programs are healthy. NO. Healthy programs win. We are not healthy and show no signs of trying or caring. That is why big donors have left. They know a fundamental failure when they see it. The best you can achieve with all your money is maybe a dead cat bounce.

The fate of the Cal program did not ride on whether Miami scored that last touchdown. That was only going to change things temporarily on the margins. If anything the fate of the Cal program was more influenced by College Gameday. Frankly, I did not think Cal student or fans had it in them to show up for Cal football like that. Didn't think you could make them care. They did everything to make Cal succeed. They sent Cal a message. Will Cal respond? Further, ESPN sent Cal a message. Lyons should watch McAfee's speech on a loop. He made an eloquent case, backed up by the students, for why you do this. Lyons should make everyone who wants to be an obstacle sit in a room and listen to those 3 minutes over and over again until they get it. Whether you care about this or not, whether you think it is important or not, whether you think sports should have a big place in the culture, it does. Showing that the liberals, and nerds, and geniuses are a part of this culture and have commonality with the rest of the culture blunts the attacks of our detractors and increases the influence of our university and our students and alumni.

Cal has fallen ass backwards into having people like Sebasta fighting for the program and students showing up like yesterday. As much as moving conferences sucks, we no longer have conference foes who have decades of Cal being losers woven into the fabric of their psyche. We have the opportunity for change. Lyons needs to clean house now. Cal can no longer run $50M deficits. Cal can't afford to sit there with people who don't know how to fix the problem and just complain that it is too big and blame their predecessors, or the coaches, or the refs, or the cheating programs, or the state of college sports. There are people who know how to fix this problem. (and no, neither I nor any of you are one of those people). Yes, its difficult and will take a long time. And yes, in the interim, the students and fans will fade quietly into the woodwork at times. But they showed yesterday what they can be. Cal's administration has never shown that. The journey of a thousand miles starts with one step. Take the damned step. Or don't and let us get off this ride.

And I will get controversial here. Rich, your administration is a pile of shyte. You have inherited an absolute dung heap that has been festering for decades. Athletics is the canary in the coal mine. The bottom line is students and faculty have been paddling against that same current my whole life. It is only our vast talent that has resulted in success that Cal has despite an administrative function that is incompetent and entitled and who basks in the glory that others achieve and they only hinder. This has always been the case. Cal lost its #1 public university status and sorry to everyone here, but Cal deserved to lose it. As much as we can argue we are the best and most prestigious academically, that isn't enough anymore. There are excellent universities that are nearly our match. And they don't fail at everything outside the classroom. The administration does not support the students and faculty. They have always had an attitude that because we are public school kids we don't deserve services. Well, maybe that was the case when it was free or almost. Now you demand thousands of dollars for the privilege and you can't solve a decades long housing crisis. Your financial aid support that most of the students have to navigate is shyte. An easy thing to fix like having decent food can't be managed. Making sure classroom facilities are okay can't be done. Yes, Cal is a high performance academic vehicle, but the seats are broken, the aircon doesn't work, you can't plug in your phone. The windows don't go down. You can't play music. So yes, you've got the hard part. Mechanically great car. But a lot of students are now saying they'll give up on some mechanics to not sit in a car for four years with a spring poking their ass and sweating with no climate control. Frankly, it has always burned me that the administrative function at Cal has taken pride in achievement that they hinder. The administration has always taken the position that students and faculty are lucky to be at Cal. NO. Cal is lucky to have such talented students and faculty. #2 is not Cal's floor. You want to see the floor? Look at the football team. The academics only excel as long as students and faculty keep coming. You keep shortchanging lecturers by not offering tenured positions, fail to build enough housing, fail to support recent alums in finding jobs or graduate schools, fail to do everything that other college administrations do, including yes, maybe providing some entertaining athletics, you will lose them and when it reaches critical mass, it will happen fast. I don't decry the #2 ranking. It's valid. It's a wake up call. Do something about it.

So Chancellor Lyons, don't go off on an targeting no call or a #2 ranking. Go off on an administration that puts us in a position for these things to matter. You are in a position to be a chancellor that goes down as one of the greats because you are taking over for a list that have done little to change things and the problems are now mounting. I'm pulling for you.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Didn't notice this before because no one else commented, but thought I should bump.

Yes, I largely agree: the fans, donors, and community have shown that the interest is there. There's no denying it after the turnout for GameDay and the Miami game. The school needs to step up. And you're probably right that this extends to all parts of the university: they've been resting on the (legitimately earned) reputation of UC Berkeley for a while now and not doing anything to improve the student experience (or the student-athlete experience). And now the reputation is slipping.

But there is opportunity to improve it!
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?

I am encouraged by the fact that we hired Rich Lyons. Had we gone with one of the "usual suspects" (Dean of Students at Brown and President of Swarthmore, that sort of thing), we would almost certainly continue the downward slide.

Lyons gives us a chance.
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Pittsburgh
01Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big C said:


I am encouraged by the fact that we hired Rich Lyons. Had we gone with one of the "usual suspects" (Dean of Students at Brown and President of Swarthmore, that sort of thing), we would almost certainly continue the downward slide.

Lyons gives us a chance.

Until he actually does something to fix the problems in the athletic department, he's (at best) another Tien.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big C said:


I am encouraged by the fact that we hired Rich Lyons. Had we gone with one of the "usual suspects" (Dean of Students at Brown and President of Swarthmore, that sort of thing), we would almost certainly continue the downward slide.

Lyons gives us a chance.
Definitely was the best choice of what was likely available. Here's hoping!
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?
01Bear said:

Big C said:


I am encouraged by the fact that we hired Rich Lyons. Had we gone with one of the "usual suspects" (Dean of Students at Brown and President of Swarthmore, that sort of thing), we would almost certainly continue the downward slide.

Lyons gives us a chance.

Until he actually does something to fix the problems in the athletic department, he's (at best) another Tien.

Well yes, until he's done something, he hasn't done anything. But until that time, he has a background in business and entrepreneurship that Tien did not have, so I am hopeful.
LessMilesMoreTedford
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If there's one thing that Sebastabear and the burners taught us, it's that it doesn't take much for the fans, the alumni, the students to make an impact.

The admin might not be our friends, but if we stop spending our time whining, organize, build community and continue to push and advocate for things, we can make a difference. We have to be the change and do it ourselves.
Econ141
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I don't disagree here but I think whining is a necessary component. The AD puts out a note thanking the Cal community for all the support but that is tone deaf. It was inspire of him that the fans came out the way they did. That has to be known. Knowlton and Markeisha are probably using last week as proof that they are doing their jobs when in reality it was just standing Cal fans organizing.

Last week shows that that the coefficient of success is very high at Cal. Give us some hope and excitement and we will come out in droves. Just what would it be if the admin and coaching were actually competent?!?!
Give to Cal Legends!

https://calegends.com/donation/ Do it now. Text every Cal fan you know, give them the link, tell them how much you gave, and ask them to text every Cal fan they know and do the same.
LessMilesMoreTedford
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Econ141 said:

I don't disagree here but I think whining is a necessary component. The AD puts out a note thanking the Cal community for all the support but that is tone deaf. It was inspire of him that the fans came out the way they did. That has to be known. Knowlton and Markeisha are probably using last week as proof that they are doing their jobs when in reality it was just standing Cal fans organizing.

Last week shows that that the coefficient of success is very high at Cal. Give us some hope and excitement and we will come out in droves. Just what would it be if the admin and coaching were actually competent?!?!
Whining is fine in a place like this, but is anyone taking the next step, publicly outlining the issues thoughtfully, emailing local media with these concerns, creating petitions and Facebook groups to advocate for change?

One person complaining via email can easily go in the trash for an admin. A public petition signed by 10,000 Cal fans is another thing altogether. Stuff like this saved Cal rugby and Cal baseball.


socaltownie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
There is a lot to unpack but an existential moment for cal actually looms in 2032...when they can commence a building boom at Clark Kerr. Of course the extremely wealthy homeowners there will bitterly fight. That is the fight for cal worth fighting .
Take care of your Chicken
HistoryBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

Didn't notice this before because no one else commented, but thought I should bump.

Yes, I largely agree: the fans, donors, and community have shown that the interest is there. There's no denying it after the turnout for GameDay and the Miami game. The school needs to step up. And you're probably right that this extends to all parts of the university: they've been resting on the (legitimately earned) reputation of UC Berkeley for a while now and not doing anything to improve the student experience (or the student-athlete experience). And now the reputation is slipping.

But there is opportunity to improve it!


Cal hasn't done anything to improve the student experience? Really? Didn't Cal just open a fancy dorm (Anchor(?)) and aren't we building over People's Park? Also, didn't we just have a successful capital campaign that beat its goal by a billion dollars and then go on to raise another billion the following year? When I walked around campus last Saturday, everything seems cleaner (including the immediate area surrounding the university). Cal no longer has that "Bezerkeley" feel that I remember. As for the supposed slip in reputation, I call BS on that. No one who knows anything about academia in America would seriously think that Cal suddenly turned into U$C or should be equated to Fucla. Also, last weekend was a bellwether; we gave notice to the college football world that we have some of the most passionate fans in college football. Oh, and we also have two alums that just won Nobel prizes in the last two days. I think our reputation is fine.
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HistoryBear said:

sycasey said:

Didn't notice this before because no one else commented, but thought I should bump.

Yes, I largely agree: the fans, donors, and community have shown that the interest is there. There's no denying it after the turnout for GameDay and the Miami game. The school needs to step up. And you're probably right that this extends to all parts of the university: they've been resting on the (legitimately earned) reputation of UC Berkeley for a while now and not doing anything to improve the student experience (or the student-athlete experience). And now the reputation is slipping.

But there is opportunity to improve it!


Cal hasn't done anything to improve the student experience? Really? Didn't Cal just open a fancy dorm (Anchor(?)) and aren't we building over People's Park? Also, didn't we just have a successful capital campaign that beat its goal by a billion dollars and then go on to raise another billion the following year? When I walked around campus last Saturday, everything seems cleaner (including the immediate area surrounding the university). Cal no longer has that "Bezerkeley" feel that I remember. As for the supposed slip in reputation, I call BS on that. No one who knows anything about academia in America would seriously think that Cal suddenly turned into U$C or should be equated to Fucla. Also, last weekend was a bellwether; we gave notice to the college football world that we have some of the most passionate fans in college football. Oh, and we also have two alums that just won Nobel prizes in the last two days. I think our reputation is fine.

Agreed. Carol Christ was a good Chancellor (especially relative to most of her immediate predecessors). She even was pro-athletics, except she didn't have the tool kit to transform the athletic department. But she did absorb 1/2 of our stadium debt, which is significant.

It all starts from the top... and Rich Lyons is about as good as we can hope for to take us to the next level.
01Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big C said:

01Bear said:

Big C said:


I am encouraged by the fact that we hired Rich Lyons. Had we gone with one of the "usual suspects" (Dean of Students at Brown and President of Swarthmore, that sort of thing), we would almost certainly continue the downward slide.

Lyons gives us a chance.

Until he actually does something to fix the problems in the athletic department, he's (at best) another Tien.

Well yes, until he's done something, he hasn't done anything. But until that time, he has a background in business and entrepreneurship that Tien did not have, so I am hopeful.

Until that time, I'm not convinced he's better for the athletics department than Tien. He may be great for the academic side, he may be the world's greatest fundraiser, he may even help Cal alumni and faculty win more Nobels (and believe you me, I'd be super stoked about any and all of that), but if he doesn't put out the dumpster fire that is the athletic department les by Knowlton and Everett, then he's no better than Tien (at least re athletics).
01Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HistoryBear said:

sycasey said:

Didn't notice this before because no one else commented, but thought I should bump.

Yes, I largely agree: the fans, donors, and community have shown that the interest is there. There's no denying it after the turnout for GameDay and the Miami game. The school needs to step up. And you're probably right that this extends to all parts of the university: they've been resting on the (legitimately earned) reputation of UC Berkeley for a while now and not doing anything to improve the student experience (or the student-athlete experience). And now the reputation is slipping.

But there is opportunity to improve it!


Cal hasn't done anything to improve the student experience? Really? Didn't Cal just open a fancy dorm (Anchor(?)) and aren't we building over People's Park? Also, didn't we just have a successful capital campaign that beat its goal by a billion dollars and then go on to raise another billion the following year? When I walked around campus last Saturday, everything seems cleaner (including the immediate area surrounding the university). Cal no longer has that "Bezerkeley" feel that I remember. As for the supposed slip in reputation, I call BS on that. No one who knows anything about academia in America would seriously think that Cal suddenly turned into U$C or should be equated to Fucla. Also, last weekend was a bellwether; we gave notice to the college football world that we have some of the most passionate fans in college football. Oh, and we also have two alums that just won Nobel prizes in the last two days. I think our reputation is fine.

Serious (old alumnus) question here, what's Anchor hall/dorm? Where is it located? Is it more like Haste Channing, Foothill, Bowles, Clark Kerr or the Units?
socaltownie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I grew up in Berkeley but I am a landmark guy rather than street names. Anchor house is located just west of the main campus footprint across from where old Warren hall used to be. It is very nice. Higher rise (15 to 20 stories). Really good addition but getting housing for at least first 2 years for all that want will demand massive redevelopment of Clark Kerr cause you want larger floorplates for getting the most t housing our of your building envelope.

For higher ed geeks instructive to look at massive building boom at ucsd to get to housing for all 4 years
Take care of your Chicken
socaltownie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jt is great but deferred Mainteinance over at units 1,2 and 3 is pretty embarrassing
Take care of your Chicken
Golden One
How long do you want to ignore this user?
01Bear said:


Serious (old alumnus) question here, what's Anchor hall/dorm? Where is it located? Is it more like Haste Channing, Foothill, Bowles, Clark Kerr or the Units?
Anchor House is a new 772-bed dorm for transfer students at 1950 Oxford Street.
72CalBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Where do we go from here? First, support the team in spite of the shortages you may think, and keep the Game Day momentum moving forward. Stay a rabid Bears fan! Many of the suggestions I agree with. As for the student athletes (especially perhaps football and baseball), is there any option to lift them scholastically vis a vis more course/majors? We all realize the incredible academics that Cal provides, yet for our semi-pro football players now, how about a new focus on achievable majors? Not doping down like maybe USC, but perhaps more departmental support for those who are devoting so much valuable time to their sport? This has been mentioned before. We all have heard that many potential recruits (and maybe portal transfers) are wary and maybe even scared off by the perceived academics at Cal. Is there any movement that I don't know about to assist our Bears in navigating their academic goals?
Bring back bottled beer and cigars at CMS. Should get us back in the Rose Bowl!
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This is not going to be received well by some. So be it, the OP wanted rants.

One thing that bothers me about the pollyannish spin from the new Chancellor is that he gives so much credence to a US News index that can be so easily gamed. The focus are on broad campus wide criteria that can and are easily manipulated. Just ask USC. Other rankings from Money or Fortune magazines are more focus heavily on specific metrics to avoid a lot of gaming, but are thought to have biases. Nevertheless, Princeton comes out the best on US News, Money and Fortune, so it clearly must be a top school right?

Not so fast. Niche asks a million high seniors to rank schools, and Princeton comes in number 10, barely. And Cal (and some other traditional elite schools like Harvard) are dropping. Cal is now the number 8 public school. They also asked a million undergrads to rate their school. MIT and Yale are the top schools with high 4 star rankings (like recruit ranking techniques?). Cal rates 3 and one-half stars and is ranked number 42. Problems include housing, inability to get desired classes, safety, dining facilities, and work load. Dorms, campus, safety and dining facilities were among the worse rated in the nation among top 100 colleges. Academics and diversity scored an A plus. Athletics scored an A (65% of the students said athletics was very important to student life), as did professors, student life, and strangely, party scene. The Greek scene was rated average. So Mr. Chancellor, you inherit a campus with a declining reputation among high schoolers and undergrads sufficient to damage the schools overall ratings.

As for grad students, they have different interests. This really is very little as to what goes into the US News rankings. The US government sponsored National Research Council generates a purely statistics driven ranking of research quality, and Cal continues to do well. Cal, and individual departments at Cal, also gets high rankings in academic generated rankings. I can quote numbers if you like.

Where this leave us at is that in undergrad related rankings, is Cal is declining, and primarily due to non-academic criteria. This tends to stem from the badly mis-managing the campus and student needs. When you look at what UCLA has done with dorms and other residential options, the Lusk Center hotel complex, food choices, and upgrading its campus (good bye open space), it really had elevated its rankings and is the number 1 ranked public school among high schools and undergrad students, and also US News, Money, Fortune, and the like.

IMO, CC was by far the best Chancellor at setting changes in motion because she spent such a long time at Cal, and Lyons benefits from the same advantage. The school has an entrenched faculty and bureaucracy. CC started off things with the dorms and in other areas, and Lyons needs to understand his school's weaknesses. Stupid platitudes where his school is weak isn't going to cut it. So far I have seen a lot of symbolic stuff, but little else. Actions speak more than words.
LessMilesMoreTedford
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

This is not going to be received well by some. So be it, the OP wanted rants.

One thing that bothers me about the pollyannish spin from the new Chancellor is that he gives so much credence to a US News index that can be so easily gamed. The focus are on broad campus wide criteria that can and are easily manipulated. Just ask USC. Other rankings from Money or Fortune magazines are more focus heavily on specific metrics to avoid a lot of gaming, but are thought to have biases. Nevertheless, Princeton comes out the best on US News, Money and Fortune, so it clearly must be a top school right?

Not so fast. Niche asks a million high seniors to rank schools, and Princeton comes in number 10, barely. And Cal (and some other traditional elite schools like Harvard) are dropping. Cal is now the number 8 public school. They also asked a million undergrads to rate their school. MIT and Yale are the top schools with high 4 star rankings (like recruit ranking techniques?). Cal rates 3 and one-half stars and is ranked number 42. Problems include housing, inability to get desired classes, safety, dining facilities, and work load. Dorms, campus, safety and dining facilities were among the worse rated in the nation among top 100 colleges. Academics and diversity scored an A plus. Athletics scored an A (65% of the students said athletics was very important to student life), as did professors, student life, and strangely, party scene. The Greek scene was rated average. So Mr. Chancellor, you inherit a campus with a declining reputation among high schoolers and undergrads sufficient to damage the schools overall ratings.

As for grad students, they have different interests. This really is very little as to what goes into the US News rankings. The US government sponsored National Research Council generates a purely statistics driven ranking of research quality, and Cal continues to do well. Cal, and individual departments at Cal, also gets high rankings in academic generated rankings. I can quote numbers if you like.

Where this leave us at is that in undergrad related rankings, is Cal is declining, and primarily due to non-academic criteria. This tends to stem from the badly mis-managing the campus and student needs. When you look at what UCLA has done with dorms and other residential options, the Lusk Center hotel complex, food choices, and upgrading its campus (good bye open space), it really had elevated its rankings and is the number 1 ranked public school among high schools and undergrad students, and also US News, Money, Fortune, and the like.

IMO, CC was by far the best Chancellor at setting changes in motion because she spent such a long time at Cal, and Lyons benefits from the same advantage. The school has an entrenched faculty and bureaucracy. CC started off things with the dorms and in other areas, and Lyons needs to understand his school's weaknesses. Stupid platitudes where his school is weak isn't going to cut it. So far I have seen a lot of symbolic stuff, but little else. Actions speak more than words.
Polling high schoolers on where they want to go to college seems a bit self-selective. If you look at this list it's nearly all private schools at the top, which makes sense--life is immeasurably easier there and you are far more setup for postgrad life.

UCLA likely wins out with high schoolers because there's a larger population of students in Southern California and that is the public school of choice. Berkeley is the choice for the overachievers, the bright minds, so it has a more selective group.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LessMilesMoreTedford said:

wifeisafurd said:

This is not going to be received well by some. So be it, the OP wanted rants.

One thing that bothers me about the pollyannish spin from the new Chancellor is that he gives so much credence to a US News index that can be so easily gamed. The focus are on broad campus wide criteria that can and are easily manipulated. Just ask USC. Other rankings from Money or Fortune magazines are more focus heavily on specific metrics to avoid a lot of gaming, but are thought to have biases. Nevertheless, Princeton comes out the best on US News, Money and Fortune, so it clearly must be a top school right?

Not so fast. Niche asks a million high seniors to rank schools, and Princeton comes in number 10, barely. And Cal (and some other traditional elite schools like Harvard) are dropping. Cal is now the number 8 public school. They also asked a million undergrads to rate their school. MIT and Yale are the top schools with high 4 star rankings (like recruit ranking techniques?). Cal rates 3 and one-half stars and is ranked number 42. Problems include housing, inability to get desired classes, safety, dining facilities, and work load. Dorms, campus, safety and dining facilities were among the worse rated in the nation among top 100 colleges. Academics and diversity scored an A plus. Athletics scored an A (65% of the students said athletics was very important to student life), as did professors, student life, and strangely, party scene. The Greek scene was rated average. So Mr. Chancellor, you inherit a campus with a declining reputation among high schoolers and undergrads sufficient to damage the schools overall ratings.

As for grad students, they have different interests. This really is very little as to what goes into the US News rankings. The US government sponsored National Research Council generates a purely statistics driven ranking of research quality, and Cal continues to do well. Cal, and individual departments at Cal, also gets high rankings in academic generated rankings. I can quote numbers if you like.

Where this leave us at is that in undergrad related rankings, is Cal is declining, and primarily due to non-academic criteria. This tends to stem from the badly mis-managing the campus and student needs. When you look at what UCLA has done with dorms and other residential options, the Lusk Center hotel complex, food choices, and upgrading its campus (good bye open space), it really had elevated its rankings and is the number 1 ranked public school among high schools and undergrad students, and also US News, Money, Fortune, and the like.

IMO, CC was by far the best Chancellor at setting changes in motion because she spent such a long time at Cal, and Lyons benefits from the same advantage. The school has an entrenched faculty and bureaucracy. CC started off things with the dorms and in other areas, and Lyons needs to understand his school's weaknesses. Stupid platitudes where his school is weak isn't going to cut it. So far I have seen a lot of symbolic stuff, but little else. Actions speak more than words.
Polling high schoolers on where they want to go to college seems a bit self-selective. If you look at this list it's nearly all private schools at the top, which makes sense--life is immeasurably easier there and you are far more setup for postgrad life.

UCLA likely wins out with high schoolers because there's a larger population of students in Southern California and that is the public school of choice. Berkeley is the choice for the overachievers, the bright minds, so it has a more selective group.
A million high schoolers across the nation is not self-selective, it is an exceedingly large sample size, that goes way beyond the simple geographic Cali south-north construct you pose, or the tired private -public comments. Don't ask me how Niche got this many responses - I had never even heard of the website. That said, explain to me why Cal's ratings keeps going down? Is it that it is no longer the choice of those purported self-selecting overachievers? And why going down in the public school ratings so much? Let me suggest to you the reasons are set forth in the terrible marks Cal gets from its overachieving, self-selective students who actually go to Cal.
BearlyCareAnymore
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

LessMilesMoreTedford said:

wifeisafurd said:

This is not going to be received well by some. So be it, the OP wanted rants.

One thing that bothers me about the pollyannish spin from the new Chancellor is that he gives so much credence to a US News index that can be so easily gamed. The focus are on broad campus wide criteria that can and are easily manipulated. Just ask USC. Other rankings from Money or Fortune magazines are more focus heavily on specific metrics to avoid a lot of gaming, but are thought to have biases. Nevertheless, Princeton comes out the best on US News, Money and Fortune, so it clearly must be a top school right?

Not so fast. Niche asks a million high seniors to rank schools, and Princeton comes in number 10, barely. And Cal (and some other traditional elite schools like Harvard) are dropping. Cal is now the number 8 public school. They also asked a million undergrads to rate their school. MIT and Yale are the top schools with high 4 star rankings (like recruit ranking techniques?). Cal rates 3 and one-half stars and is ranked number 42. Problems include housing, inability to get desired classes, safety, dining facilities, and work load. Dorms, campus, safety and dining facilities were among the worse rated in the nation among top 100 colleges. Academics and diversity scored an A plus. Athletics scored an A (65% of the students said athletics was very important to student life), as did professors, student life, and strangely, party scene. The Greek scene was rated average. So Mr. Chancellor, you inherit a campus with a declining reputation among high schoolers and undergrads sufficient to damage the schools overall ratings.

As for grad students, they have different interests. This really is very little as to what goes into the US News rankings. The US government sponsored National Research Council generates a purely statistics driven ranking of research quality, and Cal continues to do well. Cal, and individual departments at Cal, also gets high rankings in academic generated rankings. I can quote numbers if you like.

Where this leave us at is that in undergrad related rankings, is Cal is declining, and primarily due to non-academic criteria. This tends to stem from the badly mis-managing the campus and student needs. When you look at what UCLA has done with dorms and other residential options, the Lusk Center hotel complex, food choices, and upgrading its campus (good bye open space), it really had elevated its rankings and is the number 1 ranked public school among high schools and undergrad students, and also US News, Money, Fortune, and the like.

IMO, CC was by far the best Chancellor at setting changes in motion because she spent such a long time at Cal, and Lyons benefits from the same advantage. The school has an entrenched faculty and bureaucracy. CC started off things with the dorms and in other areas, and Lyons needs to understand his school's weaknesses. Stupid platitudes where his school is weak isn't going to cut it. So far I have seen a lot of symbolic stuff, but little else. Actions speak more than words.
Polling high schoolers on where they want to go to college seems a bit self-selective. If you look at this list it's nearly all private schools at the top, which makes sense--life is immeasurably easier there and you are far more setup for postgrad life.

UCLA likely wins out with high schoolers because there's a larger population of students in Southern California and that is the public school of choice. Berkeley is the choice for the overachievers, the bright minds, so it has a more selective group.
A million high schoolers across the nation is not self-selective, it is an exceedingly large sample size, that goes way beyond the simple geographic Cali south-north construct you pose, or the tired private -public comments. Don't ask me how Niche got this many responses - I had never even heard of the website. That said, explain to me why Cal's ratings keeps going down? Is it that it is no longer the choice of those purported self-selecting overachievers? And why going down in the public school ratings so much? Let me suggest to you the reasons are set forth in the terrible marks Cal gets from its overachieving, self-selective students who actually go to Cal.
WIAF - You speak the truth. Let's just start with the fact that we all know that between Students, Faculty, and Administration, one of those does not belong with the other two in terms of quality. Frankly we all experienced the attitude from the administration that we were lucky to get such a great education at such a cheap price. They always used to say they were a European style university (whatever that means) that was sink or swim, no one is going to take care of you, you gotta take care of yourself as if that was a badge of honor instead of a gigantic excuse not to provide any services. A few things have happened.

1. The pool of qualified applicants nationwide has skyrocketed meaning there are plenty of good students to go around. That means that schools that were second tier have dramatically improved the quality of their students and that alone improves the quality of education.

2. Cost of education has skyrocketed. Many of the schools who used to provide a stripped down experience outside the classroom have come to understand that when you are asking people to pay thousands of dollars you need to up your game.

3. Cal hasn't kept pace with #2

With specifics to UCLA, they are still a public school with public school faults. But, for instance, they recognized they had a huge problem with housing and they solved it. Cal has been wringing their hands for years. And our alums are like "What? We built a dorm. There's 800 out of 40,000 covered". A silly thing I know, but UCLA was rated #1 in the country in the quality of food in their dining halls. That is an indicator. Kids talk about that. Is anyone deciding to go to UCLA for the food? I doubt it. But it is at least saying they care about the student experience. Food is a pretty easy thing to solve.

No one expects the same service for $15K a year that you get for $40K a year. But a lot of schools in the $15K bucket are doing a lot better in student services than Cal is and help their students through the various administrative processes rather than making it difficult. There will be plenty of students and faculty who will come to Cal because academically it is the best. However, there will be more and more students and faculty who will say schools 2-10 academically are good enough not to put up with an administration that makes things harder in every facet outside the classroom. And that is the ultimate threat to Cal remaining the best academically.

We can keep saying every year that everyone knows we are the best or maybe we can ask why we are rating so low in everything else, especially when other UC's are figuring these things out. Frankly, I think it stems from an attitude that Cal is so good it doesn't have to try. I expect Cal's administration to at least be the best in the UC system and frankly that just isn't close to the case right now.

As you say, we are declining primarily due to non-academic criteria. Instead of blowing that off as unimportant, we should be ticked off.

oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearlyCareAnymore said:

wifeisafurd said:

LessMilesMoreTedford said:

wifeisafurd said:

This is not going to be received well by some. So be it, the OP wanted rants.

One thing that bothers me about the pollyannish spin from the new Chancellor is that he gives so much credence to a US News index that can be so easily gamed. The focus are on broad campus wide criteria that can and are easily manipulated. Just ask USC. Other rankings from Money or Fortune magazines are more focus heavily on specific metrics to avoid a lot of gaming, but are thought to have biases. Nevertheless, Princeton comes out the best on US News, Money and Fortune, so it clearly must be a top school right?

Not so fast. Niche asks a million high seniors to rank schools, and Princeton comes in number 10, barely. And Cal (and some other traditional elite schools like Harvard) are dropping. Cal is now the number 8 public school. They also asked a million undergrads to rate their school. MIT and Yale are the top schools with high 4 star rankings (like recruit ranking techniques?). Cal rates 3 and one-half stars and is ranked number 42. Problems include housing, inability to get desired classes, safety, dining facilities, and work load. Dorms, campus, safety and dining facilities were among the worse rated in the nation among top 100 colleges. Academics and diversity scored an A plus. Athletics scored an A (65% of the students said athletics was very important to student life), as did professors, student life, and strangely, party scene. The Greek scene was rated average. So Mr. Chancellor, you inherit a campus with a declining reputation among high schoolers and undergrads sufficient to damage the schools overall ratings.

As for grad students, they have different interests. This really is very little as to what goes into the US News rankings. The US government sponsored National Research Council generates a purely statistics driven ranking of research quality, and Cal continues to do well. Cal, and individual departments at Cal, also gets high rankings in academic generated rankings. I can quote numbers if you like.

Where this leave us at is that in undergrad related rankings, is Cal is declining, and primarily due to non-academic criteria. This tends to stem from the badly mis-managing the campus and student needs. When you look at what UCLA has done with dorms and other residential options, the Lusk Center hotel complex, food choices, and upgrading its campus (good bye open space), it really had elevated its rankings and is the number 1 ranked public school among high schools and undergrad students, and also US News, Money, Fortune, and the like.

IMO, CC was by far the best Chancellor at setting changes in motion because she spent such a long time at Cal, and Lyons benefits from the same advantage. The school has an entrenched faculty and bureaucracy. CC started off things with the dorms and in other areas, and Lyons needs to understand his school's weaknesses. Stupid platitudes where his school is weak isn't going to cut it. So far I have seen a lot of symbolic stuff, but little else. Actions speak more than words.
Polling high schoolers on where they want to go to college seems a bit self-selective. If you look at this list it's nearly all private schools at the top, which makes sense--life is immeasurably easier there and you are far more setup for postgrad life.

UCLA likely wins out with high schoolers because there's a larger population of students in Southern California and that is the public school of choice. Berkeley is the choice for the overachievers, the bright minds, so it has a more selective group.
A million high schoolers across the nation is not self-selective, it is an exceedingly large sample size, that goes way beyond the simple geographic Cali south-north construct you pose, or the tired private -public comments. Don't ask me how Niche got this many responses - I had never even heard of the website. That said, explain to me why Cal's ratings keeps going down? Is it that it is no longer the choice of those purported self-selecting overachievers? And why going down in the public school ratings so much? Let me suggest to you the reasons are set forth in the terrible marks Cal gets from its overachieving, self-selective students who actually go to Cal.
WIAF - You speak the truth. Let's just start with the fact that we all know that between Students, Faculty, and Administration, one of those does not belong with the other two in terms of quality. Frankly we all experienced the attitude from the administration that we were lucky to get such a great education at such a cheap price. They always used to say they were a European style university (whatever that means) that was sink or swim, no one is going to take care of you, you gotta take care of yourself as if that was a badge of honor instead of a gigantic excuse not to provide any services. A few things have happened.

1. The pool of qualified applicants nationwide has skyrocketed meaning there are plenty of good students to go around. That means that schools that were second tier have dramatically improved the quality of their students and that alone improves the quality of education.

2. Cost of education has skyrocketed. Many of the schools who used to provide a stripped down experience outside the classroom have come to understand that when you are asking people to pay thousands of dollars you need to up your game.

3. Cal hasn't kept pace with #2

With specifics to UCLA, they are still a public school with public school faults. But, for instance, they recognized they had a huge problem with housing and they solved it. Cal has been wringing their hands for years. And our alums are like "What? We built a dorm. There's 800 out of 40,000 covered". A silly thing I know, but UCLA was rated #1 in the country in the quality of food in their dining halls. That is an indicator. Kids talk about that. Is anyone deciding to go to UCLA for the food? I doubt it. But it is at least saying they care about the student experience. Food is a pretty easy thing to solve.

No one expects the same service for $15K a year that you get for $40K a year. But a lot of schools in the $15K bucket are doing a lot better in student services than Cal is and help their students through the various administrative processes rather than making it difficult. There will be plenty of students and faculty who will come to Cal because academically it is the best. However, there will be more and more students and faculty who will say schools 2-10 academically are good enough not to put up with an administration that makes things harder in every facet outside the classroom. And that is the ultimate threat to Cal remaining the best academically.

We can keep saying every year that everyone knows we are the best or maybe we can ask why we are rating so low in everything else, especially when other UC's are figuring these things out. Frankly, I think it stems from an attitude that Cal is so good it doesn't have to try. I expect Cal's administration to at least be the best in the UC system and frankly that just isn't close to the case right now.

As you say, we are declining primarily due to non-academic criteria. Instead of blowing that off as unimportant, we should be ticked off.




Athletes do go to school for food.
bear2034
How long do you want to ignore this user?
01Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearlyCareAnymore said:

wifeisafurd said:

LessMilesMoreTedford said:

wifeisafurd said:

This is not going to be received well by some. So be it, the OP wanted rants.

One thing that bothers me about the pollyannish spin from the new Chancellor is that he gives so much credence to a US News index that can be so easily gamed. The focus are on broad campus wide criteria that can and are easily manipulated. Just ask USC. Other rankings from Money or Fortune magazines are more focus heavily on specific metrics to avoid a lot of gaming, but are thought to have biases. Nevertheless, Princeton comes out the best on US News, Money and Fortune, so it clearly must be a top school right?

Not so fast. Niche asks a million high seniors to rank schools, and Princeton comes in number 10, barely. And Cal (and some other traditional elite schools like Harvard) are dropping. Cal is now the number 8 public school. They also asked a million undergrads to rate their school. MIT and Yale are the top schools with high 4 star rankings (like recruit ranking techniques?). Cal rates 3 and one-half stars and is ranked number 42. Problems include housing, inability to get desired classes, safety, dining facilities, and work load. Dorms, campus, safety and dining facilities were among the worse rated in the nation among top 100 colleges. Academics and diversity scored an A plus. Athletics scored an A (65% of the students said athletics was very important to student life), as did professors, student life, and strangely, party scene. The Greek scene was rated average. So Mr. Chancellor, you inherit a campus with a declining reputation among high schoolers and undergrads sufficient to damage the schools overall ratings.

As for grad students, they have different interests. This really is very little as to what goes into the US News rankings. The US government sponsored National Research Council generates a purely statistics driven ranking of research quality, and Cal continues to do well. Cal, and individual departments at Cal, also gets high rankings in academic generated rankings. I can quote numbers if you like.

Where this leave us at is that in undergrad related rankings, is Cal is declining, and primarily due to non-academic criteria. This tends to stem from the badly mis-managing the campus and student needs. When you look at what UCLA has done with dorms and other residential options, the Lusk Center hotel complex, food choices, and upgrading its campus (good bye open space), it really had elevated its rankings and is the number 1 ranked public school among high schools and undergrad students, and also US News, Money, Fortune, and the like.

IMO, CC was by far the best Chancellor at setting changes in motion because she spent such a long time at Cal, and Lyons benefits from the same advantage. The school has an entrenched faculty and bureaucracy. CC started off things with the dorms and in other areas, and Lyons needs to understand his school's weaknesses. Stupid platitudes where his school is weak isn't going to cut it. So far I have seen a lot of symbolic stuff, but little else. Actions speak more than words.
Polling high schoolers on where they want to go to college seems a bit self-selective. If you look at this list it's nearly all private schools at the top, which makes sense--life is immeasurably easier there and you are far more setup for postgrad life.

UCLA likely wins out with high schoolers because there's a larger population of students in Southern California and that is the public school of choice. Berkeley is the choice for the overachievers, the bright minds, so it has a more selective group.
A million high schoolers across the nation is not self-selective, it is an exceedingly large sample size, that goes way beyond the simple geographic Cali south-north construct you pose, or the tired private -public comments. Don't ask me how Niche got this many responses - I had never even heard of the website. That said, explain to me why Cal's ratings keeps going down? Is it that it is no longer the choice of those purported self-selecting overachievers? And why going down in the public school ratings so much? Let me suggest to you the reasons are set forth in the terrible marks Cal gets from its overachieving, self-selective students who actually go to Cal.
WIAF - You speak the truth. Let's just start with the fact that we all know that between Students, Faculty, and Administration, one of those does not belong with the other two in terms of quality. Frankly we all experienced the attitude from the administration that we were lucky to get such a great education at such a cheap price. They always used to say they were a European style university (whatever that means) that was sink or swim, no one is going to take care of you, you gotta take care of yourself as if that was a badge of honor instead of a gigantic excuse not to provide any services. A few things have happened.

1. The pool of qualified applicants nationwide has skyrocketed meaning there are plenty of good students to go around. That means that schools that were second tier have dramatically improved the quality of their students and that alone improves the quality of education.

2. Cost of education has skyrocketed. Many of the schools who used to provide a stripped down experience outside the classroom have come to understand that when you are asking people to pay thousands of dollars you need to up your game.

3. Cal hasn't kept pace with #2

With specifics to UCLA, they are still a public school with public school faults. But, for instance, they recognized they had a huge problem with housing and they solved it. Cal has been wringing their hands for years. And our alums are like "What? We built a dorm. There's 800 out of 40,000 covered". A silly thing I know, but UCLA was rated #1 in the country in the quality of food in their dining halls. That is an indicator. Kids talk about that. Is anyone deciding to go to UCLA for the food? I doubt it. But it is at least saying they care about the student experience. Food is a pretty easy thing to solve.

No one expects the same service for $15K a year that you get for $40K a year. But a lot of schools in the $15K bucket are doing a lot better in student services than Cal is and help their students through the various administrative processes rather than making it difficult. There will be plenty of students and faculty who will come to Cal because academically it is the best. However, there will be more and more students and faculty who will say schools 2-10 academically are good enough not to put up with an administration that makes things harder in every facet outside the classroom. And that is the ultimate threat to Cal remaining the best academically.

We can keep saying every year that everyone knows we are the best or maybe we can ask why we are rating so low in everything else, especially when other UC's are figuring these things out. Frankly, I think it stems from an attitude that Cal is so good it doesn't have to try. I expect Cal's administration to at least be the best in the UC system and frankly that just isn't close to the case right now.

As you say, we are declining primarily due to non-academic criteria. Instead of blowing that off as unimportant, we should be ticked off.


Didn't Cal change up its dorm food around 20 years ago and hire a new chef and open up a central dining commons? Did they get rid of all that and revert to the slop they served when I was a freshman?

Also, aside from the DCs, there were on-campus restaurants that served pretty good food when I was a student. Ramon's cafe and the GBC come to mind. Of course, the best food was off-campus, but isn't that true for all universities?
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearlyCareAnymore said:

wifeisafurd said:

LessMilesMoreTedford said:

wifeisafurd said:

This is not going to be received well by some. So be it, the OP wanted rants.

One thing that bothers me about the pollyannish spin from the new Chancellor is that he gives so much credence to a US News index that can be so easily gamed. The focus are on broad campus wide criteria that can and are easily manipulated. Just ask USC. Other rankings from Money or Fortune magazines are more focus heavily on specific metrics to avoid a lot of gaming, but are thought to have biases. Nevertheless, Princeton comes out the best on US News, Money and Fortune, so it clearly must be a top school right?

Not so fast. Niche asks a million high seniors to rank schools, and Princeton comes in number 10, barely. And Cal (and some other traditional elite schools like Harvard) are dropping. Cal is now the number 8 public school. They also asked a million undergrads to rate their school. MIT and Yale are the top schools with high 4 star rankings (like recruit ranking techniques?). Cal rates 3 and one-half stars and is ranked number 42. Problems include housing, inability to get desired classes, safety, dining facilities, and work load. Dorms, campus, safety and dining facilities were among the worse rated in the nation among top 100 colleges. Academics and diversity scored an A plus. Athletics scored an A (65% of the students said athletics was very important to student life), as did professors, student life, and strangely, party scene. The Greek scene was rated average. So Mr. Chancellor, you inherit a campus with a declining reputation among high schoolers and undergrads sufficient to damage the schools overall ratings.

As for grad students, they have different interests. This really is very little as to what goes into the US News rankings. The US government sponsored National Research Council generates a purely statistics driven ranking of research quality, and Cal continues to do well. Cal, and individual departments at Cal, also gets high rankings in academic generated rankings. I can quote numbers if you like.

Where this leave us at is that in undergrad related rankings, is Cal is declining, and primarily due to non-academic criteria. This tends to stem from the badly mis-managing the campus and student needs. When you look at what UCLA has done with dorms and other residential options, the Lusk Center hotel complex, food choices, and upgrading its campus (good bye open space), it really had elevated its rankings and is the number 1 ranked public school among high schools and undergrad students, and also US News, Money, Fortune, and the like.

IMO, CC was by far the best Chancellor at setting changes in motion because she spent such a long time at Cal, and Lyons benefits from the same advantage. The school has an entrenched faculty and bureaucracy. CC started off things with the dorms and in other areas, and Lyons needs to understand his school's weaknesses. Stupid platitudes where his school is weak isn't going to cut it. So far I have seen a lot of symbolic stuff, but little else. Actions speak more than words.
Polling high schoolers on where they want to go to college seems a bit self-selective. If you look at this list it's nearly all private schools at the top, which makes sense--life is immeasurably easier there and you are far more setup for postgrad life.

UCLA likely wins out with high schoolers because there's a larger population of students in Southern California and that is the public school of choice. Berkeley is the choice for the overachievers, the bright minds, so it has a more selective group.
A million high schoolers across the nation is not self-selective, it is an exceedingly large sample size, that goes way beyond the simple geographic Cali south-north construct you pose, or the tired private -public comments. Don't ask me how Niche got this many responses - I had never even heard of the website. That said, explain to me why Cal's ratings keeps going down? Is it that it is no longer the choice of those purported self-selecting overachievers? And why going down in the public school ratings so much? Let me suggest to you the reasons are set forth in the terrible marks Cal gets from its overachieving, self-selective students who actually go to Cal.
WIAF - You speak the truth. Let's just start with the fact that we all know that between Students, Faculty, and Administration, one of those does not belong with the other two in terms of quality. Frankly we all experienced the attitude from the administration that we were lucky to get such a great education at such a cheap price. They always used to say they were a European style university (whatever that means) that was sink or swim, no one is going to take care of you, you gotta take care of yourself as if that was a badge of honor instead of a gigantic excuse not to provide any services. A few things have happened.

1. The pool of qualified applicants nationwide has skyrocketed meaning there are plenty of good students to go around. That means that schools that were second tier have dramatically improved the quality of their students and that alone improves the quality of education.

2. Cost of education has skyrocketed. Many of the schools who used to provide a stripped down experience outside the classroom have come to understand that when you are asking people to pay thousands of dollars you need to up your game.

3. Cal hasn't kept pace with #2

With specifics to UCLA, they are still a public school with public school faults. But, for instance, they recognized they had a huge problem with housing and they solved it. Cal has been wringing their hands for years. And our alums are like "What? We built a dorm. There's 800 out of 40,000 covered". A silly thing I know, but UCLA was rated #1 in the country in the quality of food in their dining halls. That is an indicator. Kids talk about that. Is anyone deciding to go to UCLA for the food? I doubt it. But it is at least saying they care about the student experience. Food is a pretty easy thing to solve.

No one expects the same service for $15K a year that you get for $40K a year. But a lot of schools in the $15K bucket are doing a lot better in student services than Cal is and help their students through the various administrative processes rather than making it difficult. There will be plenty of students and faculty who will come to Cal because academically it is the best. However, there will be more and more students and faculty who will say schools 2-10 academically are good enough not to put up with an administration that makes things harder in every facet outside the classroom. And that is the ultimate threat to Cal remaining the best academically.

We can keep saying every year that everyone knows we are the best or maybe we can ask why we are rating so low in everything else, especially when other UC's are figuring these things out. Frankly, I think it stems from an attitude that Cal is so good it doesn't have to try. I expect Cal's administration to at least be the best in the UC system and frankly that just isn't close to the case right now.

As you say, we are declining primarily due to non-academic criteria. Instead of blowing that off as unimportant, we should be ticked off.


I would add that the narrative on Cal is it is not safe. Worse rankings from students of any top 100 school. By far. It I'm a parent writing that big check, I'm saying f-that, and not paying to live in fear that something bad will happen to my kid.
01Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

BearlyCareAnymore said:

wifeisafurd said:

LessMilesMoreTedford said:

wifeisafurd said:

This is not going to be received well by some. So be it, the OP wanted rants.

One thing that bothers me about the pollyannish spin from the new Chancellor is that he gives so much credence to a US News index that can be so easily gamed. The focus are on broad campus wide criteria that can and are easily manipulated. Just ask USC. Other rankings from Money or Fortune magazines are more focus heavily on specific metrics to avoid a lot of gaming, but are thought to have biases. Nevertheless, Princeton comes out the best on US News, Money and Fortune, so it clearly must be a top school right?

Not so fast. Niche asks a million high seniors to rank schools, and Princeton comes in number 10, barely. And Cal (and some other traditional elite schools like Harvard) are dropping. Cal is now the number 8 public school. They also asked a million undergrads to rate their school. MIT and Yale are the top schools with high 4 star rankings (like recruit ranking techniques?). Cal rates 3 and one-half stars and is ranked number 42. Problems include housing, inability to get desired classes, safety, dining facilities, and work load. Dorms, campus, safety and dining facilities were among the worse rated in the nation among top 100 colleges. Academics and diversity scored an A plus. Athletics scored an A (65% of the students said athletics was very important to student life), as did professors, student life, and strangely, party scene. The Greek scene was rated average. So Mr. Chancellor, you inherit a campus with a declining reputation among high schoolers and undergrads sufficient to damage the schools overall ratings.

As for grad students, they have different interests. This really is very little as to what goes into the US News rankings. The US government sponsored National Research Council generates a purely statistics driven ranking of research quality, and Cal continues to do well. Cal, and individual departments at Cal, also gets high rankings in academic generated rankings. I can quote numbers if you like.

Where this leave us at is that in undergrad related rankings, is Cal is declining, and primarily due to non-academic criteria. This tends to stem from the badly mis-managing the campus and student needs. When you look at what UCLA has done with dorms and other residential options, the Lusk Center hotel complex, food choices, and upgrading its campus (good bye open space), it really had elevated its rankings and is the number 1 ranked public school among high schools and undergrad students, and also US News, Money, Fortune, and the like.

IMO, CC was by far the best Chancellor at setting changes in motion because she spent such a long time at Cal, and Lyons benefits from the same advantage. The school has an entrenched faculty and bureaucracy. CC started off things with the dorms and in other areas, and Lyons needs to understand his school's weaknesses. Stupid platitudes where his school is weak isn't going to cut it. So far I have seen a lot of symbolic stuff, but little else. Actions speak more than words.
Polling high schoolers on where they want to go to college seems a bit self-selective. If you look at this list it's nearly all private schools at the top, which makes sense--life is immeasurably easier there and you are far more setup for postgrad life.

UCLA likely wins out with high schoolers because there's a larger population of students in Southern California and that is the public school of choice. Berkeley is the choice for the overachievers, the bright minds, so it has a more selective group.
A million high schoolers across the nation is not self-selective, it is an exceedingly large sample size, that goes way beyond the simple geographic Cali south-north construct you pose, or the tired private -public comments. Don't ask me how Niche got this many responses - I had never even heard of the website. That said, explain to me why Cal's ratings keeps going down? Is it that it is no longer the choice of those purported self-selecting overachievers? And why going down in the public school ratings so much? Let me suggest to you the reasons are set forth in the terrible marks Cal gets from its overachieving, self-selective students who actually go to Cal.
WIAF - You speak the truth. Let's just start with the fact that we all know that between Students, Faculty, and Administration, one of those does not belong with the other two in terms of quality. Frankly we all experienced the attitude from the administration that we were lucky to get such a great education at such a cheap price. They always used to say they were a European style university (whatever that means) that was sink or swim, no one is going to take care of you, you gotta take care of yourself as if that was a badge of honor instead of a gigantic excuse not to provide any services. A few things have happened.

1. The pool of qualified applicants nationwide has skyrocketed meaning there are plenty of good students to go around. That means that schools that were second tier have dramatically improved the quality of their students and that alone improves the quality of education.

2. Cost of education has skyrocketed. Many of the schools who used to provide a stripped down experience outside the classroom have come to understand that when you are asking people to pay thousands of dollars you need to up your game.

3. Cal hasn't kept pace with #2

With specifics to UCLA, they are still a public school with public school faults. But, for instance, they recognized they had a huge problem with housing and they solved it. Cal has been wringing their hands for years. And our alums are like "What? We built a dorm. There's 800 out of 40,000 covered". A silly thing I know, but UCLA was rated #1 in the country in the quality of food in their dining halls. That is an indicator. Kids talk about that. Is anyone deciding to go to UCLA for the food? I doubt it. But it is at least saying they care about the student experience. Food is a pretty easy thing to solve.

No one expects the same service for $15K a year that you get for $40K a year. But a lot of schools in the $15K bucket are doing a lot better in student services than Cal is and help their students through the various administrative processes rather than making it difficult. There will be plenty of students and faculty who will come to Cal because academically it is the best. However, there will be more and more students and faculty who will say schools 2-10 academically are good enough not to put up with an administration that makes things harder in every facet outside the classroom. And that is the ultimate threat to Cal remaining the best academically.

We can keep saying every year that everyone knows we are the best or maybe we can ask why we are rating so low in everything else, especially when other UC's are figuring these things out. Frankly, I think it stems from an attitude that Cal is so good it doesn't have to try. I expect Cal's administration to at least be the best in the UC system and frankly that just isn't close to the case right now.

As you say, we are declining primarily due to non-academic criteria. Instead of blowing that off as unimportant, we should be ticked off.


I would add that the narrative on Cal is it is not safe. Worse rankings from students of any top 100 school. By far. It I'm a parent writing that big check, I'm saying f-that, and not paying to live in fear that something bad will happen to my kid.

How is Cal less safe than U$C? That makes no sense. I'm not saying I disagree with you, but I can't see Cal being more dangerous than $C or Yale.
eastcoastcal
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Perhaps for those who are reading, the following anecdote might provide some color as to the bureaucratic issues at hand:

Over the past few years, I've founded an org on campus & also led another, both software-oriented clubs. I've signed contract deals in the past 1.5 years alone with the likes of Netflix, Google, DoorDash, OpenAI, etc. to the tune of several hundred thousand dollars.

As part of this work, my network has expanded pretty solidly and I wanted to build a program similar to one at Stanford- a dinner club where prominent speakers in the world of business and tech come in and talk to a select group of students, completely off-the-record. The Stanford admin provides budget and space for this program (student-run), and it's an extreme nepo win for Furds. They've had folks like Sam Altman, Jensen Huang, Andre Iguodala, Tom Steyer, and more.

I went to the campus and asked for a place we could host this at, and minimal funding to cover food (if need be I could also crowdfund). In return, there were a million pre-requisites I had to meet: how is this program equitable, are students of all sorts of perspectives going to be well-represented, is the food union-produced or not, is this fair to the university run speaker series which already brings in speakers, etc etc. Some of it, I understand- there are legal requirements for on campus initiatives. But several weeks later, no response & frankly I don't have time to combat all the nonsense, my energy is better spent on other initiatives. It's sad, because I had leaders from companies like Stripe, OpenAI, Google, Goldman Sachs, Accel, Sequoia, and more who were willing to come in and talk. There was also an alumni skew- part of the pitch was that this would help engage our very wealthy, successful alumni, likely catalyzing donations.

Here's the good news, though. Students are increasingly taking this out of the administration's hands. For those who haven't been deeply invested in the last 5-7 years of campus dynamics, student-run clubs have become a major source of career development and engagement. It effectively bypasses a lot of the administrative negligence and allows huge pipelines of industry connection for Berkeley students. The campus club culture is probably the most robust in the entire country, perhaps with Penn Wharton being the one rival (I still don't think it's nearly as built out over there). It's very strong.

Hope this provides any semblance of color towards bureaucracy at Cal and the administrative state. Don't take this to mean there's zero competency in our leaders: just that there's a lot of paper pushers who's first instinct is to provide a million reasons why something shouldn't get done, instead of finding a way to get it done.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
01Bear said:

wifeisafurd said:

BearlyCareAnymore said:

wifeisafurd said:

LessMilesMoreTedford said:

wifeisafurd said:

This is not going to be received well by some. So be it, the OP wanted rants.

One thing that bothers me about the pollyannish spin from the new Chancellor is that he gives so much credence to a US News index that can be so easily gamed. The focus are on broad campus wide criteria that can and are easily manipulated. Just ask USC. Other rankings from Money or Fortune magazines are more focus heavily on specific metrics to avoid a lot of gaming, but are thought to have biases. Nevertheless, Princeton comes out the best on US News, Money and Fortune, so it clearly must be a top school right?

Not so fast. Niche asks a million high seniors to rank schools, and Princeton comes in number 10, barely. And Cal (and some other traditional elite schools like Harvard) are dropping. Cal is now the number 8 public school. They also asked a million undergrads to rate their school. MIT and Yale are the top schools with high 4 star rankings (like recruit ranking techniques?). Cal rates 3 and one-half stars and is ranked number 42. Problems include housing, inability to get desired classes, safety, dining facilities, and work load. Dorms, campus, safety and dining facilities were among the worse rated in the nation among top 100 colleges. Academics and diversity scored an A plus. Athletics scored an A (65% of the students said athletics was very important to student life), as did professors, student life, and strangely, party scene. The Greek scene was rated average. So Mr. Chancellor, you inherit a campus with a declining reputation among high schoolers and undergrads sufficient to damage the schools overall ratings.

As for grad students, they have different interests. This really is very little as to what goes into the US News rankings. The US government sponsored National Research Council generates a purely statistics driven ranking of research quality, and Cal continues to do well. Cal, and individual departments at Cal, also gets high rankings in academic generated rankings. I can quote numbers if you like.

Where this leave us at is that in undergrad related rankings, is Cal is declining, and primarily due to non-academic criteria. This tends to stem from the badly mis-managing the campus and student needs. When you look at what UCLA has done with dorms and other residential options, the Lusk Center hotel complex, food choices, and upgrading its campus (good bye open space), it really had elevated its rankings and is the number 1 ranked public school among high schools and undergrad students, and also US News, Money, Fortune, and the like.

IMO, CC was by far the best Chancellor at setting changes in motion because she spent such a long time at Cal, and Lyons benefits from the same advantage. The school has an entrenched faculty and bureaucracy. CC started off things with the dorms and in other areas, and Lyons needs to understand his school's weaknesses. Stupid platitudes where his school is weak isn't going to cut it. So far I have seen a lot of symbolic stuff, but little else. Actions speak more than words.
Polling high schoolers on where they want to go to college seems a bit self-selective. If you look at this list it's nearly all private schools at the top, which makes sense--life is immeasurably easier there and you are far more setup for postgrad life.

UCLA likely wins out with high schoolers because there's a larger population of students in Southern California and that is the public school of choice. Berkeley is the choice for the overachievers, the bright minds, so it has a more selective group.
A million high schoolers across the nation is not self-selective, it is an exceedingly large sample size, that goes way beyond the simple geographic Cali south-north construct you pose, or the tired private -public comments. Don't ask me how Niche got this many responses - I had never even heard of the website. That said, explain to me why Cal's ratings keeps going down? Is it that it is no longer the choice of those purported self-selecting overachievers? And why going down in the public school ratings so much? Let me suggest to you the reasons are set forth in the terrible marks Cal gets from its overachieving, self-selective students who actually go to Cal.
WIAF - You speak the truth. Let's just start with the fact that we all know that between Students, Faculty, and Administration, one of those does not belong with the other two in terms of quality. Frankly we all experienced the attitude from the administration that we were lucky to get such a great education at such a cheap price. They always used to say they were a European style university (whatever that means) that was sink or swim, no one is going to take care of you, you gotta take care of yourself as if that was a badge of honor instead of a gigantic excuse not to provide any services. A few things have happened.

1. The pool of qualified applicants nationwide has skyrocketed meaning there are plenty of good students to go around. That means that schools that were second tier have dramatically improved the quality of their students and that alone improves the quality of education.

2. Cost of education has skyrocketed. Many of the schools who used to provide a stripped down experience outside the classroom have come to understand that when you are asking people to pay thousands of dollars you need to up your game.

3. Cal hasn't kept pace with #2

With specifics to UCLA, they are still a public school with public school faults. But, for instance, they recognized they had a huge problem with housing and they solved it. Cal has been wringing their hands for years. And our alums are like "What? We built a dorm. There's 800 out of 40,000 covered". A silly thing I know, but UCLA was rated #1 in the country in the quality of food in their dining halls. That is an indicator. Kids talk about that. Is anyone deciding to go to UCLA for the food? I doubt it. But it is at least saying they care about the student experience. Food is a pretty easy thing to solve.

No one expects the same service for $15K a year that you get for $40K a year. But a lot of schools in the $15K bucket are doing a lot better in student services than Cal is and help their students through the various administrative processes rather than making it difficult. There will be plenty of students and faculty who will come to Cal because academically it is the best. However, there will be more and more students and faculty who will say schools 2-10 academically are good enough not to put up with an administration that makes things harder in every facet outside the classroom. And that is the ultimate threat to Cal remaining the best academically.

We can keep saying every year that everyone knows we are the best or maybe we can ask why we are rating so low in everything else, especially when other UC's are figuring these things out. Frankly, I think it stems from an attitude that Cal is so good it doesn't have to try. I expect Cal's administration to at least be the best in the UC system and frankly that just isn't close to the case right now.

As you say, we are declining primarily due to non-academic criteria. Instead of blowing that off as unimportant, we should be ticked off.


I would add that the narrative on Cal is it is not safe. Worse rankings from students of any top 100 school. By far. It I'm a parent writing that big check, I'm saying f-that, and not paying to live in fear that something bad will happen to my kid.

How is Cal less safe than U$C? That makes no sense I'm not saying I disagree with you, but I can see Cal being more dangerous than $C or Yale.
Well I would have had the same view, but the students disagree. 78% of the SC students said they feel safe and secure on campus. 57% of Cal students said the feel safe and secure. Cal has a huge problem, which apparently is being ignored.
01Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

01Bear said:

wifeisafurd said:

BearlyCareAnymore said:

wifeisafurd said:

LessMilesMoreTedford said:

wifeisafurd said:

This is not going to be received well by some. So be it, the OP wanted rants.

One thing that bothers me about the pollyannish spin from the new Chancellor is that he gives so much credence to a US News index that can be so easily gamed. The focus are on broad campus wide criteria that can and are easily manipulated. Just ask USC. Other rankings from Money or Fortune magazines are more focus heavily on specific metrics to avoid a lot of gaming, but are thought to have biases. Nevertheless, Princeton comes out the best on US News, Money and Fortune, so it clearly must be a top school right?

Not so fast. Niche asks a million high seniors to rank schools, and Princeton comes in number 10, barely. And Cal (and some other traditional elite schools like Harvard) are dropping. Cal is now the number 8 public school. They also asked a million undergrads to rate their school. MIT and Yale are the top schools with high 4 star rankings (like recruit ranking techniques?). Cal rates 3 and one-half stars and is ranked number 42. Problems include housing, inability to get desired classes, safety, dining facilities, and work load. Dorms, campus, safety and dining facilities were among the worse rated in the nation among top 100 colleges. Academics and diversity scored an A plus. Athletics scored an A (65% of the students said athletics was very important to student life), as did professors, student life, and strangely, party scene. The Greek scene was rated average. So Mr. Chancellor, you inherit a campus with a declining reputation among high schoolers and undergrads sufficient to damage the schools overall ratings.

As for grad students, they have different interests. This really is very little as to what goes into the US News rankings. The US government sponsored National Research Council generates a purely statistics driven ranking of research quality, and Cal continues to do well. Cal, and individual departments at Cal, also gets high rankings in academic generated rankings. I can quote numbers if you like.

Where this leave us at is that in undergrad related rankings, is Cal is declining, and primarily due to non-academic criteria. This tends to stem from the badly mis-managing the campus and student needs. When you look at what UCLA has done with dorms and other residential options, the Lusk Center hotel complex, food choices, and upgrading its campus (good bye open space), it really had elevated its rankings and is the number 1 ranked public school among high schools and undergrad students, and also US News, Money, Fortune, and the like.

IMO, CC was by far the best Chancellor at setting changes in motion because she spent such a long time at Cal, and Lyons benefits from the same advantage. The school has an entrenched faculty and bureaucracy. CC started off things with the dorms and in other areas, and Lyons needs to understand his school's weaknesses. Stupid platitudes where his school is weak isn't going to cut it. So far I have seen a lot of symbolic stuff, but little else. Actions speak more than words.
Polling high schoolers on where they want to go to college seems a bit self-selective. If you look at this list it's nearly all private schools at the top, which makes sense--life is immeasurably easier there and you are far more setup for postgrad life.

UCLA likely wins out with high schoolers because there's a larger population of students in Southern California and that is the public school of choice. Berkeley is the choice for the overachievers, the bright minds, so it has a more selective group.
A million high schoolers across the nation is not self-selective, it is an exceedingly large sample size, that goes way beyond the simple geographic Cali south-north construct you pose, or the tired private -public comments. Don't ask me how Niche got this many responses - I had never even heard of the website. That said, explain to me why Cal's ratings keeps going down? Is it that it is no longer the choice of those purported self-selecting overachievers? And why going down in the public school ratings so much? Let me suggest to you the reasons are set forth in the terrible marks Cal gets from its overachieving, self-selective students who actually go to Cal.
WIAF - You speak the truth. Let's just start with the fact that we all know that between Students, Faculty, and Administration, one of those does not belong with the other two in terms of quality. Frankly we all experienced the attitude from the administration that we were lucky to get such a great education at such a cheap price. They always used to say they were a European style university (whatever that means) that was sink or swim, no one is going to take care of you, you gotta take care of yourself as if that was a badge of honor instead of a gigantic excuse not to provide any services. A few things have happened.

1. The pool of qualified applicants nationwide has skyrocketed meaning there are plenty of good students to go around. That means that schools that were second tier have dramatically improved the quality of their students and that alone improves the quality of education.

2. Cost of education has skyrocketed. Many of the schools who used to provide a stripped down experience outside the classroom have come to understand that when you are asking people to pay thousands of dollars you need to up your game.

3. Cal hasn't kept pace with #2

With specifics to UCLA, they are still a public school with public school faults. But, for instance, they recognized they had a huge problem with housing and they solved it. Cal has been wringing their hands for years. And our alums are like "What? We built a dorm. There's 800 out of 40,000 covered". A silly thing I know, but UCLA was rated #1 in the country in the quality of food in their dining halls. That is an indicator. Kids talk about that. Is anyone deciding to go to UCLA for the food? I doubt it. But it is at least saying they care about the student experience. Food is a pretty easy thing to solve.

No one expects the same service for $15K a year that you get for $40K a year. But a lot of schools in the $15K bucket are doing a lot better in student services than Cal is and help their students through the various administrative processes rather than making it difficult. There will be plenty of students and faculty who will come to Cal because academically it is the best. However, there will be more and more students and faculty who will say schools 2-10 academically are good enough not to put up with an administration that makes things harder in every facet outside the classroom. And that is the ultimate threat to Cal remaining the best academically.

We can keep saying every year that everyone knows we are the best or maybe we can ask why we are rating so low in everything else, especially when other UC's are figuring these things out. Frankly, I think it stems from an attitude that Cal is so good it doesn't have to try. I expect Cal's administration to at least be the best in the UC system and frankly that just isn't close to the case right now.

As you say, we are declining primarily due to non-academic criteria. Instead of blowing that off as unimportant, we should be ticked off.


I would add that the narrative on Cal is it is not safe. Worse rankings from students of any top 100 school. By far. It I'm a parent writing that big check, I'm saying f-that, and not paying to live in fear that something bad will happen to my kid.

How is Cal less safe than U$C? That makes no sense I'm not saying I disagree with you, but I can see Cal being more dangerous than $C or Yale.
Well I would have had the same view, but the students disagree. 78% of the SC students said they feel safe and secure on campus. 57% of Cal students said the feel safe and secure. Cal has a huge problem, which apparently is being ignored.


Thanks. Again, I'm not disagreeing, just confused as to why that is.
pingpong2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

01Bear said:

wifeisafurd said:

BearlyCareAnymore said:

wifeisafurd said:

LessMilesMoreTedford said:

wifeisafurd said:

This is not going to be received well by some. So be it, the OP wanted rants.

One thing that bothers me about the pollyannish spin from the new Chancellor is that he gives so much credence to a US News index that can be so easily gamed. The focus are on broad campus wide criteria that can and are easily manipulated. Just ask USC. Other rankings from Money or Fortune magazines are more focus heavily on specific metrics to avoid a lot of gaming, but are thought to have biases. Nevertheless, Princeton comes out the best on US News, Money and Fortune, so it clearly must be a top school right?

Not so fast. Niche asks a million high seniors to rank schools, and Princeton comes in number 10, barely. And Cal (and some other traditional elite schools like Harvard) are dropping. Cal is now the number 8 public school. They also asked a million undergrads to rate their school. MIT and Yale are the top schools with high 4 star rankings (like recruit ranking techniques?). Cal rates 3 and one-half stars and is ranked number 42. Problems include housing, inability to get desired classes, safety, dining facilities, and work load. Dorms, campus, safety and dining facilities were among the worse rated in the nation among top 100 colleges. Academics and diversity scored an A plus. Athletics scored an A (65% of the students said athletics was very important to student life), as did professors, student life, and strangely, party scene. The Greek scene was rated average. So Mr. Chancellor, you inherit a campus with a declining reputation among high schoolers and undergrads sufficient to damage the schools overall ratings.

As for grad students, they have different interests. This really is very little as to what goes into the US News rankings. The US government sponsored National Research Council generates a purely statistics driven ranking of research quality, and Cal continues to do well. Cal, and individual departments at Cal, also gets high rankings in academic generated rankings. I can quote numbers if you like.

Where this leave us at is that in undergrad related rankings, is Cal is declining, and primarily due to non-academic criteria. This tends to stem from the badly mis-managing the campus and student needs. When you look at what UCLA has done with dorms and other residential options, the Lusk Center hotel complex, food choices, and upgrading its campus (good bye open space), it really had elevated its rankings and is the number 1 ranked public school among high schools and undergrad students, and also US News, Money, Fortune, and the like.

IMO, CC was by far the best Chancellor at setting changes in motion because she spent such a long time at Cal, and Lyons benefits from the same advantage. The school has an entrenched faculty and bureaucracy. CC started off things with the dorms and in other areas, and Lyons needs to understand his school's weaknesses. Stupid platitudes where his school is weak isn't going to cut it. So far I have seen a lot of symbolic stuff, but little else. Actions speak more than words.
Polling high schoolers on where they want to go to college seems a bit self-selective. If you look at this list it's nearly all private schools at the top, which makes sense--life is immeasurably easier there and you are far more setup for postgrad life.

UCLA likely wins out with high schoolers because there's a larger population of students in Southern California and that is the public school of choice. Berkeley is the choice for the overachievers, the bright minds, so it has a more selective group.
A million high schoolers across the nation is not self-selective, it is an exceedingly large sample size, that goes way beyond the simple geographic Cali south-north construct you pose, or the tired private -public comments. Don't ask me how Niche got this many responses - I had never even heard of the website. That said, explain to me why Cal's ratings keeps going down? Is it that it is no longer the choice of those purported self-selecting overachievers? And why going down in the public school ratings so much? Let me suggest to you the reasons are set forth in the terrible marks Cal gets from its overachieving, self-selective students who actually go to Cal.
WIAF - You speak the truth. Let's just start with the fact that we all know that between Students, Faculty, and Administration, one of those does not belong with the other two in terms of quality. Frankly we all experienced the attitude from the administration that we were lucky to get such a great education at such a cheap price. They always used to say they were a European style university (whatever that means) that was sink or swim, no one is going to take care of you, you gotta take care of yourself as if that was a badge of honor instead of a gigantic excuse not to provide any services. A few things have happened.

1. The pool of qualified applicants nationwide has skyrocketed meaning there are plenty of good students to go around. That means that schools that were second tier have dramatically improved the quality of their students and that alone improves the quality of education.

2. Cost of education has skyrocketed. Many of the schools who used to provide a stripped down experience outside the classroom have come to understand that when you are asking people to pay thousands of dollars you need to up your game.

3. Cal hasn't kept pace with #2

With specifics to UCLA, they are still a public school with public school faults. But, for instance, they recognized they had a huge problem with housing and they solved it. Cal has been wringing their hands for years. And our alums are like "What? We built a dorm. There's 800 out of 40,000 covered". A silly thing I know, but UCLA was rated #1 in the country in the quality of food in their dining halls. That is an indicator. Kids talk about that. Is anyone deciding to go to UCLA for the food? I doubt it. But it is at least saying they care about the student experience. Food is a pretty easy thing to solve.

No one expects the same service for $15K a year that you get for $40K a year. But a lot of schools in the $15K bucket are doing a lot better in student services than Cal is and help their students through the various administrative processes rather than making it difficult. There will be plenty of students and faculty who will come to Cal because academically it is the best. However, there will be more and more students and faculty who will say schools 2-10 academically are good enough not to put up with an administration that makes things harder in every facet outside the classroom. And that is the ultimate threat to Cal remaining the best academically.

We can keep saying every year that everyone knows we are the best or maybe we can ask why we are rating so low in everything else, especially when other UC's are figuring these things out. Frankly, I think it stems from an attitude that Cal is so good it doesn't have to try. I expect Cal's administration to at least be the best in the UC system and frankly that just isn't close to the case right now.

As you say, we are declining primarily due to non-academic criteria. Instead of blowing that off as unimportant, we should be ticked off.


I would add that the narrative on Cal is it is not safe. Worse rankings from students of any top 100 school. By far. It I'm a parent writing that big check, I'm saying f-that, and not paying to live in fear that something bad will happen to my kid.

How is Cal less safe than U$C? That makes no sense I'm not saying I disagree with you, but I can see Cal being more dangerous than $C or Yale.
Well I would have had the same view, but the students disagree. 78% of the SC students said they feel safe and secure on campus. 57% of Cal students said the feel safe and secure. Cal has a huge problem, which apparently is being ignored.

I agree that U$C on campus feels exceedingly safe. At night they are really strict with letting cars and foot traffic in at the gates (ID checks and very likely some degree of racial profiling going on), and you can't go a minute with seeing one of the DPS yellow jackets. The Cal campus on the other hand is wide open, and you rarely if ever see UCPD around.

U$C had some high profile student deaths a decade ago. I remember the one where the Chinese international student got beaten to death by punks with baseball bats really lit a fire under the school to expand DPS's presence well outside of the perimeter of campus.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
01Bear said:

wifeisafurd said:

01Bear said:

wifeisafurd said:

BearlyCareAnymore said:

wifeisafurd said:

LessMilesMoreTedford said:

wifeisafurd said:

This is not going to be received well by some. So be it, the OP wanted rants.

One thing that bothers me about the pollyannish spin from the new Chancellor is that he gives so much credence to a US News index that can be so easily gamed. The focus are on broad campus wide criteria that can and are easily manipulated. Just ask USC. Other rankings from Money or Fortune magazines are more focus heavily on specific metrics to avoid a lot of gaming, but are thought to have biases. Nevertheless, Princeton comes out the best on US News, Money and Fortune, so it clearly must be a top school right?

Not so fast. Niche asks a million high seniors to rank schools, and Princeton comes in number 10, barely. And Cal (and some other traditional elite schools like Harvard) are dropping. Cal is now the number 8 public school. They also asked a million undergrads to rate their school. MIT and Yale are the top schools with high 4 star rankings (like recruit ranking techniques?). Cal rates 3 and one-half stars and is ranked number 42. Problems include housing, inability to get desired classes, safety, dining facilities, and work load. Dorms, campus, safety and dining facilities were among the worse rated in the nation among top 100 colleges. Academics and diversity scored an A plus. Athletics scored an A (65% of the students said athletics was very important to student life), as did professors, student life, and strangely, party scene. The Greek scene was rated average. So Mr. Chancellor, you inherit a campus with a declining reputation among high schoolers and undergrads sufficient to damage the schools overall ratings.

As for grad students, they have different interests. This really is very little as to what goes into the US News rankings. The US government sponsored National Research Council generates a purely statistics driven ranking of research quality, and Cal continues to do well. Cal, and individual departments at Cal, also gets high rankings in academic generated rankings. I can quote numbers if you like.

Where this leave us at is that in undergrad related rankings, is Cal is declining, and primarily due to non-academic criteria. This tends to stem from the badly mis-managing the campus and student needs. When you look at what UCLA has done with dorms and other residential options, the Lusk Center hotel complex, food choices, and upgrading its campus (good bye open space), it really had elevated its rankings and is the number 1 ranked public school among high schools and undergrad students, and also US News, Money, Fortune, and the like.

IMO, CC was by far the best Chancellor at setting changes in motion because she spent such a long time at Cal, and Lyons benefits from the same advantage. The school has an entrenched faculty and bureaucracy. CC started off things with the dorms and in other areas, and Lyons needs to understand his school's weaknesses. Stupid platitudes where his school is weak isn't going to cut it. So far I have seen a lot of symbolic stuff, but little else. Actions speak more than words.
Polling high schoolers on where they want to go to college seems a bit self-selective. If you look at this list it's nearly all private schools at the top, which makes sense--life is immeasurably easier there and you are far more setup for postgrad life.

UCLA likely wins out with high schoolers because there's a larger population of students in Southern California and that is the public school of choice. Berkeley is the choice for the overachievers, the bright minds, so it has a more selective group.
A million high schoolers across the nation is not self-selective, it is an exceedingly large sample size, that goes way beyond the simple geographic Cali south-north construct you pose, or the tired private -public comments. Don't ask me how Niche got this many responses - I had never even heard of the website. That said, explain to me why Cal's ratings keeps going down? Is it that it is no longer the choice of those purported self-selecting overachievers? And why going down in the public school ratings so much? Let me suggest to you the reasons are set forth in the terrible marks Cal gets from its overachieving, self-selective students who actually go to Cal.
WIAF - You speak the truth. Let's just start with the fact that we all know that between Students, Faculty, and Administration, one of those does not belong with the other two in terms of quality. Frankly we all experienced the attitude from the administration that we were lucky to get such a great education at such a cheap price. They always used to say they were a European style university (whatever that means) that was sink or swim, no one is going to take care of you, you gotta take care of yourself as if that was a badge of honor instead of a gigantic excuse not to provide any services. A few things have happened.

1. The pool of qualified applicants nationwide has skyrocketed meaning there are plenty of good students to go around. That means that schools that were second tier have dramatically improved the quality of their students and that alone improves the quality of education.

2. Cost of education has skyrocketed. Many of the schools who used to provide a stripped down experience outside the classroom have come to understand that when you are asking people to pay thousands of dollars you need to up your game.

3. Cal hasn't kept pace with #2

With specifics to UCLA, they are still a public school with public school faults. But, for instance, they recognized they had a huge problem with housing and they solved it. Cal has been wringing their hands for years. And our alums are like "What? We built a dorm. There's 800 out of 40,000 covered". A silly thing I know, but UCLA was rated #1 in the country in the quality of food in their dining halls. That is an indicator. Kids talk about that. Is anyone deciding to go to UCLA for the food? I doubt it. But it is at least saying they care about the student experience. Food is a pretty easy thing to solve.

No one expects the same service for $15K a year that you get for $40K a year. But a lot of schools in the $15K bucket are doing a lot better in student services than Cal is and help their students through the various administrative processes rather than making it difficult. There will be plenty of students and faculty who will come to Cal because academically it is the best. However, there will be more and more students and faculty who will say schools 2-10 academically are good enough not to put up with an administration that makes things harder in every facet outside the classroom. And that is the ultimate threat to Cal remaining the best academically.

We can keep saying every year that everyone knows we are the best or maybe we can ask why we are rating so low in everything else, especially when other UC's are figuring these things out. Frankly, I think it stems from an attitude that Cal is so good it doesn't have to try. I expect Cal's administration to at least be the best in the UC system and frankly that just isn't close to the case right now.

As you say, we are declining primarily due to non-academic criteria. Instead of blowing that off as unimportant, we should be ticked off.


I would add that the narrative on Cal is it is not safe. Worse rankings from students of any top 100 school. By far. It I'm a parent writing that big check, I'm saying f-that, and not paying to live in fear that something bad will happen to my kid.

How is Cal less safe than U$C? That makes no sense I'm not saying I disagree with you, but I can see Cal being more dangerous than $C or Yale.
Well I would have had the same view, but the students disagree. 78% of the SC students said they feel safe and secure on campus. 57% of Cal students said the feel safe and secure. Cal has a huge problem, which apparently is being ignored.


Thanks. Again, I'm not disagreeing, just confused as to why that is
Don't know. Here is an article. Note in the stats used when this article came out awhile back, Cal was number 3 in the country in crime.

Berkeley's lack of safety is starting to matter in college ...SafeBears, Inc.https://www.safebears.org updates berkeleys-lack-of-s...
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.