Cal84 said:

---

>I get what you "could" do. You could also achieve that by putting cheaper toilet paper in all the bathrooms. I exaggerate, but the point is, that money is not going to scholarships and it is a tiny, tiny portion of the budget. If what you say is true about the Haas family, that just makes this all the more incompetent. I don't think anyone would disagree that $500M more than pays for having 2 extra kids. $500M is not a tiny part of the budget. What was done here seems more about favors than actual benefit to the school.

The only reason that money isn't going to scholarships is there isn't such a program for donation admissions.

It's clear now that the UC system policy of having no donation related admissions has failed. It failed allow donations that would have helped the university's mission. And it failed to prevent admissions that subverted the university's mission. Time to change it.

---

That is like saying the policy to prosecute shoplifters has failed because some shoplifters get away with It, so the solution is for stores to give everyone whatever they want for free

OaktownBear said:

---

Cal84 said:

---

>I get what you "could" do. You could also achieve that by putting cheaper toilet paper in all the bathrooms. I exaggerate, but the point is, that money is not going to scholarships and it is a tiny, tiny portion of the budget. If what you say is true about the Haas family, that just makes this all the more incompetent. I don't think anyone would disagree that $500M more than pays for having 2 extra kids. $500M is not a tiny part of the budget. What was done here seems more about favors than actual benefit to the school.

The only reason that money isn't going to scholarships is there isn't such a program for donation admissions.

It's clear now that the UC system policy of having no donation related admissions has failed. It failed allow donations that would have helped the university's mission. And it failed to prevent admissions that subverted the university's mission. Time to change it.

---

That is like saying the policy to prosecute shoplifters has failed because some shoplifters get away with It, so the solution is for stores to give everyone whatever they want for free

---

No, it's like saying the policy to prohibit shoplifting by giving the store manager alone the authority to stop it failed because you basically are giving them the key to the candy store. If you have ever owned, managed or worked in a bar, you'd know that is what inevitably happens. Your solution is to pretend that nothing is wrong or at best to exhort the managers to please, please stop stealing.

OaktownBear said:

---

Cal84 said:

---

>Under the scheme the other poster devised, (Out of state tuition + 25%, I assume multiplied by 4) which sounds great and reasonable the way he presents it, and then taking the ridiculously high number of selling 50 slots that way, you earn a whopping $17 million dollars. That is a rounding error

My numbers differ from yours by a bit, but if 1/2 of that 25% vig amounted to just $1.5 mm, you could give a $1500 scholarship to 1,000 incoming freshmen. Sure it'd only be for their first year. But it's a mystery to me why you don't think that would be a good thing, and it's completely doable.

>How about we lobby the state for a tiny increase in fees to cover this.

How about we do both? These are not exclusive activities.

>You guys keep ignoring the fact that this was not just for donors. In one case it was a favor to a regent.

There is no question that the activities reported are against the university's mission. I agree that heads must roll.

>I want to be clear on this. I assume that if a Haas or a Witter or a Hearst is up for admission, we find a way

In fact we don't. About 10 years ago the Haas family wanted to donate a reputed $500 million in exchange for getting one (it may have been two) of their grandkids in. Berkeley turned them down. That just doesn't make sense.

---

I get what you "could" do. You could also achieve that by putting cheaper toilet paper in all the bathrooms. I exaggerate, but the point is, that money is not going to scholarships and it is a tiny, tiny portion of the budget.

If what you say is true about the Haas family, that just makes this all the more incompetent. I don't think anyone would disagree that $500M more than pays for having 2 extra kids. $500M is not a tiny part of the budget. What was done here seems more about favors than actual benefit to the school.

---

Put in cheaper toilet paper and people just double up and use more. Charmin' or the highway.

Cal84 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

Cal84 said:

---

>I get what you "could" do. You could also achieve that by putting cheaper toilet paper in all the bathrooms. I exaggerate, but the point is, that money is not going to scholarships and it is a tiny, tiny portion of the budget. If what you say is true about the Haas family, that just makes this all the more incompetent. I don't think anyone would disagree that $500M more than pays for having 2 extra kids. $500M is not a tiny part of the budget. What was done here seems more about favors than actual benefit to the school.

The only reason that money isn't going to scholarships is there isn't such a program for donation admissions.

It's clear now that the UC system policy of having no donation related admissions has failed. It failed allow donations that would have helped the university's mission. And it failed to prevent admissions that subverted the university's mission. Time to change it.

---

That is like saying the policy to prosecute shoplifters has failed because some shoplifters get away with It, so the solution is for stores to give everyone whatever they want for free

---

No, it's like saying the policy to prohibit shoplifting by giving the store manager alone the authority to stop it failed because you basically are giving them the key to the candy store. If you have ever owned, managed or worked in a bar, you'd know that is what inevitably happens. Your solution is to pretend that nothing is wrong or at best to exhort the managers to please, please stop stealing.

---

There is a policy that certain behavior is inappropriate. People violated that policy. Your solution is to change the policy to make that behavior appropriate. I don't see that as the solution. I would change the policy to tell the admissions department that if any of them engage in this behavior they will be fired. ;Then when anyone of any power asks them to do it, they point to the policy and say they will be fired if they do that, so they can't. This is not actually hard to enforce if you want to.

We can debate whether allowing donations related admissions is good or bad. We obviously disagree. But the fact that people violated the policy is not a reason to allow it.

>There is a policy that certain behavior is inappropriate. People violated that policy. Your solution is to change the policy to make that behavior appropriate. I don't see that as the solution.

Now you are just being misleading. Frankly your statement that my suggestion is to legalize the behavior of those managers is an outright lie and you know it. Those admission managers/regents used their positions/recommendations to get admission for chump change or sometimes for no money at all. That is exactly what my suggestion would put an end to.

Your solution is what? You don't have one.

OaktownBear said:

---

I have to respond to a couple of points.

1. There is no metric where a UC education is close to a questionable value. And this is a different question, but UC in state tuition is not out of line with comparable institutions.

---

Value is in the eye of the beholder. But there are many, many metrics where $40k/year for UC is not a good value in comparison to other available options. Particularly when you consider the difficulty of graduating in 4 years, the lack of individualized support, and many other subjective factors that a lot of students would perceive as negative.

I love Cal and my experience there was top notch, not to mention being very affordable (tuition around $350/semester as I recall). I really enjoyed the large school environment. But times have changed and private (or even out of state) schools have a lot of comparative advantages (availability of housing, lower cost of living, other quality of life issues, alumni support, job placement, etc) and offer scholarships where the cost of attendance is often the same (or less).

And from a purely economic point of view, the best value is 2 years of JC followed by transferring to a UC, CSU or private school like USC.

I'm pretty sure you have children who have applied or soon will be applying to college. So you know how pros/cons are weighed. If you get in, the better UC schools are a great option. But not always the best or the best value.

Lots of good discussion here.

I think I am a purist. I don't really care how much someone donates. It should not be used to curry favor for admissions. Of course money peddles influence and I think I am MOSTLY okay with that if it helps keep the institution going, but even then I have some doubts. Public research universities shouldn't have the Exxon-Mobile endowed chair of environmental studies whose office is in Chevron Hall.

Public schools should exist to serve the public good. If Harvard, Stanford, and MIT want to ***** themselves out to industry or to billionaire donors like Phil Knight then let them.

I do not think that should be the mission of UC. I don't really care it is a huge net win if someone donates $1B so that their underqualified kid can get in. That corrupts the entire process.

It's like an old joke:

Man to woman: Would you sleep with me for one million dollars?
Woman: Sure.
Man: How about for ten dollars?
Woman: What do you think I am?
Man: We've already established what you are. All we're doing is bargaining about price.

Either UC is a ***** or it isn't.

I prefer it not be.

Edit: By the way, I have not given a single dollar to UC and probably never will. The reason? I feel like I would be throwing my money away. I received a quality education at Cal, but I felt like that was in spite of the administration. I had to negotiate so much of it myself. I guess that is where the savings comes in. Students and professors were top notch. Facilities? Not always, but good enough. However, any time one had to deal with the administration it was a nightmare. Do I want to donate money to fund those people? Hell no. One felt like at best they were there to simply collect a check and at worst they actively impeded one's progress. I have friends who went to private schools and the difference is akin to the difference between conducting a transaction at the DMV and at the Ritz Carlton. Miss a deadline? Need an extra ticket to an event? Absolutely need to add that class? At the privates they try to assist. At Cal it is get into another line, fill out another form, and hope for the best. I don't get the impression that more money will change that attitude.

I applied to Cal as a JC transfer and was accepted in the spring of 90. Very cost effective.

Cool note: I went to Pasadena city college. It's about 3 blocks away from... Cal Tech. Guess where my Geology professor also taught?

BearGoggles said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

I have to respond to a couple of points.

1. There is no metric where a UC education is close to a questionable value. And this is a different question, but UC in state tuition is not out of line with comparable institutions.

---

Value is in the eye of the beholder. But there are many, many metrics where $40k/year for UC is not a good value in comparison to other available options. Particularly when you consider the difficulty of graduating in 4 years, the lack of individualized support, and many other subjective factors that a lot of students would perceive as negative.

I love Cal and my experience there was top notch, not to mention being very affordable (tuition around $350/semester as I recall). I really enjoyed the large school environment. But times have changed and private (or even out of state) schools have a lot of comparative advantages (availability of housing, lower cost of living, other quality of life issues, alumni support, job placement, etc) and offer scholarships where the cost of attendance is often the same (or less).

And from a purely economic point of view, the best value is 2 years of JC followed by transferring to a UC, CSU or private school like USC.

I'm pretty sure you have children who have applied or soon will be applying to college. So you know how pros/cons are weighed. If you get in, the better UC schools are a great option. But not always the best or the best value.

---

JC option is definitely most cost effective. Of course, while it is much easier to get into Berkeley out of JC, if you get in out of high school there is no guarantee that you will get in out of JC. Life happens. That is a risk.

Berkeley ranks VERY high among colleges for return on investment for in state students based on total expense (not just tuition) vs. expected earning over a career.

A college education generally still is a hands down slam dunk on return on investment even with the much increased cost of an education.

I think you are a little out of date on the difficulty of graduating in 4 years. It isn't difficult at all anymore. With the units kids come in with it is very easy. Yes, there are impacted classes, but the vast majority can get what they need in 4 years. For some, 3.

One thing I agree with you on. Cal's administrative support sucks and while the actual numbers regarding return on investment are still high, they could make them higher with more career support AND subjectively it makes one's feeling a lot less positive. With increased cost, other schools are understanding that you need increased services. Cal is lagging badly.

dmitrig's post is spot on. I felt exactly the same way. I loved my time at Cal. Loved everything else about Cal. I came from a Cal family so I was predisposed to be positive about everything Cal. Regarding the administration, they can go to hell. There aren't enough swear words for me to express how I felt about them. They think that professors and students exist to support them instead of the other way around. They provided no support whatsoever. If Cal wants to increase donations from the rank and file, their administration would stop shyting all over the student experience. IMO that is the number one reason they don't get more donations. If you feel like your school helped you get ahead in life, you feel like giving back. If you feel like you had to do it all yourself, you think "I don't owe you anything". Yes, we "owe" for the great education we were given by our professors and peers, but when you don't get basic services outside of that, a lot of people are going to feel like they have no obligation to give back.

OaktownBear said:

---

TandemBear said:

---

"...and for many of you, what you achieved in high School wouldn't get you into UCSD, let alone Cal."

Yes AND no. Yes, the GPA's we earned and our resumes wouldn't meet today's standards, that's true.

But really, it's a vociferous "NO!" Why? Because our achievements were attained within a context. We achieved higher than our peers and high enough to gain acceptance to Cal. THAT is all that matters. Comparing then and now is really somewhat pointless.

That said, I absolutely agree that competition is much harder than it was 30 years ago and more. But many of us would have simply risen to the occasion and still met the standard (Not me, I'll readily admit). But my peers? For sure. Most of my good college friends are Phds now and/or professors. They kicked ass and took names. They're the same as the kids today: whip smart, driven and competitive.



.

---

I said many wouldn't have gotten in. Not none. Of course many would have gotten in. Many would not have. You seem to agree with me. I'm not saying that to dig at people. I'm saying that some people simply do not seem to understand that it is much more competitive now and their kids being as good as they were or even better might not be enough to qualify. I don't want to point at somebody's kid, but when a poster says their kid didn't get into Cal so now they are going to a school that ranks tied with UC Merced behind all the other UC's and they are mad at Cal for that? Reality check needs to happen.

Quote:

---

So let's stop the self-flagellation here. And I'd argue that what we put kids through today is sadism. Asking overworked high school kids to VOLUNTEER somewhere? So, it's "get top grades, participate in school clubs, play a sport, an instrument, and now volunteer" too? This is a step too far. Are we trying to kill them? (Perhaps just get them fully prepared for an adulthood of American over-workism I guess.) Volunteer their valuable time to some organization that's turning a tidy profit? Paying professionals TOP salaries? Sorry, no overworked kid in HS should volunteer his or her time to benefit some corporation's bottom line that just got ANOTHER huge tax cut.

We need to reel some of this insanity in if you ask me

---

I agree with you. The process was terrible for my daughter and her friends.

I have to say this though. Colleges really don't give a damn whether kids do volunteer work. They know all the high schools require it for honors clubs. My daughter even heard at a presentation to specifically not write an essay about taking a Spring break trip to Mexico to do a service project and how much it changed you because it makes you sound rich and pretentious (She didn't do such a trip, by the way).

I don't think they should be required to do it either, but my kids and my nephews all enjoyed their work.

By the way. When you get rid of the ACT/SAT requirement, and you have a GPA that doesn't distinguish elite students, their only way to distinguish themselves is going to be these extra curriculars.

---

UC Merced is well above Arizona.

dimitrig said:

---

...By the way, I have not given a single dollar to UC and probably never will. The reason? I feel like I would be throwing my money away. I received a quality education at Cal, but I felt like that was in spite of the administration. I had to negotiate so much of it myself. I guess that is where the savings comes in. Students and professors were top notch. Facilities? Not always, but good enough. However, any time one had to deal with the administration it was a nightmare. Do I want to donate money to fund those people? Hell no. One felt like at best they were there to simply collect a check and at worst they actively impeded one's progress. I have friends who went to private schools and the difference is akin to the difference between conducting a transaction at the DMV and at the Ritz Carlton. Miss a deadline? Need an extra ticket to an event? Absolutely need to add that class? At the privates they try to assist. At Cal it is get into another line, fill out another form, and hope for the best. I don't get the impression that more money will change that attitude.

---

You mean...something called efficiency will have to be considered? Horrors! Where will the justification go for extra state funding for cushy paper pusher jobs?? OK, I may be risking "hijacking the thread with politics" (as it's advised not to do by the mods), but I'd also say that this thing called efficiency may starve the state employee unions of union dues too.