The cost of athletics

wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Uthaithani said:

Of course Christ stubbornly refuses to do the one sensible thing - cancel these sports and the offsetting men's programs. $30mil is really $60mil or more - we know how these projects go, especially at Cal. And that's just to create the stupid structures, not the annual operating expenses.

This is why I've stopped giving money to the university. They waste it on stupid Olympic sports while shooting for mediocrity or less in the major sports that drive the bus.

Nothing's going to change. Cal will continue to suck at FB and MBB and short-change those sports while spending donors' money on garbage like this. Screw Cal.
She can't. Everyone *****ed about donors not throwing their weight around and then they did. Now she can't cut various untouchable men's sports without pissing off large donors to both Campus and sports, so the last resort is cut teams. If that means keeping all the men's sports, the only choice is Title 9 compliance and raising money to pay for all the teams.

Really, a referenced to female dog is now censored?
OaktownBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Uthaithani said:

Of course Christ stubbornly refuses to do the one sensible thing - cancel these sports and the offsetting men's programs. $30mil is really $60mil or more - we know how these projects go, especially at Cal. And that's just to create the stupid structures, not the annual operating expenses.

This is why I've stopped giving money to the university. They waste it on stupid Olympic sports while shooting for mediocrity or less in the major sports that drive the bus.

Nothing's going to change. Cal will continue to suck at FB and MBB and short-change those sports while spending donors' money on garbage like this. Screw Cal.


Your last two words express your view. So why are you still here?
Chapman_is_Gone
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OaktownBear said:

Uthaithani said:

Of course Christ stubbornly refuses to do the one sensible thing - cancel these sports and the offsetting men's programs. $30mil is really $60mil or more - we know how these projects go, especially at Cal. And that's just to create the stupid structures, not the annual operating expenses.

This is why I've stopped giving money to the university. They waste it on stupid Olympic sports while shooting for mediocrity or less in the major sports that drive the bus.

Nothing's going to change. Cal will continue to suck at FB and MBB and short-change those sports while spending donors' money on garbage like this. Screw Cal.


Your last two words express your view. So why are you still here?

Because we need negative posters just as much as dip**** posters like SonofCalVA. Why do you ask this question?
CALiforniALUM
How long do you want to ignore this user?
socaliganbear said:

CALiforniALUM said:

Christ rambles. Shows weakness.

I didn't get this at all.
It took her 10 paragraphs and 1048 words to say exactly what?
OaktownBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Chapman_is_Gone said:

OaktownBear said:

Uthaithani said:

Of course Christ stubbornly refuses to do the one sensible thing - cancel these sports and the offsetting men's programs. $30mil is really $60mil or more - we know how these projects go, especially at Cal. And that's just to create the stupid structures, not the annual operating expenses.

This is why I've stopped giving money to the university. They waste it on stupid Olympic sports while shooting for mediocrity or less in the major sports that drive the bus.

Nothing's going to change. Cal will continue to suck at FB and MBB and short-change those sports while spending donors' money on garbage like this. Screw Cal.


Your last two words express your view. So why are you still here?

Because we need negative posters just as much as dip**** posters like SonofCalVA. Why do you ask this question?
.

You find "Screw Cal" to be useful, do you? I'll never understand people who choose up sides and then decide to support Team Nega at all costs no matter how much of a universal ass a poster may be (Utha) or Team Posi no matter how much an ass a poster on that side may be (VA). And in case you didn't notice VA was banned a long time ago.

I think my willingness to criticize has been well established. There is a difference between being critical, as you have been almost exclusively recently, and expressing hatred for Cal itself. Notice I have not once criticized you. Whether I agree or not (and sometimes I do) you are coming at this from a place within the Cal community as a person that wants Cal to succeed. Utha left that position long ago and became a spurned lover who posts revenge porn out of a sick desire to injure. He has expressed hatred for Cal as an educational institution and as an athletic institution and taken cheap shots at coaches, especially Wilcox, at every opportunity. He is a cancer. What he is doing is not useful or well intentioned. Criticize Cal - fine. Hate Cal - go to hell.

"Screw Cal". That is what you are defending. Not some constructive criticism. Have you ever, would you ever, utter that? Give yourself more credit than to join with that ass.

As far as I'm concerned he can go sit in a padded cell with VA, who, by the way, I fought against every second he was here including complaining loudly that he wasn't getting chased off when critical posters who were far more decent were.
socaliganbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OaktownBear said:

Chapman_is_Gone said:

OaktownBear said:

Uthaithani said:

Of course Christ stubbornly refuses to do the one sensible thing - cancel these sports and the offsetting men's programs. $30mil is really $60mil or more - we know how these projects go, especially at Cal. And that's just to create the stupid structures, not the annual operating expenses.

This is why I've stopped giving money to the university. They waste it on stupid Olympic sports while shooting for mediocrity or less in the major sports that drive the bus.

Nothing's going to change. Cal will continue to suck at FB and MBB and short-change those sports while spending donors' money on garbage like this. Screw Cal.


Your last two words express your view. So why are you still here?

Because we need negative posters just as much as dip**** posters like SonofCalVA. Why do you ask this question?
.

You find "Screw Cal" to be useful, do you? I'll never understand people who choose up sides and then decide to support Team Nega at all costs no matter how much of a universal ass a poster may be (Utha) or Team Posi no matter how much an ass a poster on that side may be (VA). And in case you didn't notice VA was banned a long time ago.

I think my willingness to criticize has been well established. There is a difference between being critical, as you have been almost exclusively recently, and expressing hatred for Cal itself. Notice I have not once criticized you. Whether I agree or not (and sometimes I do) you are coming at this from a place within the Cal community as a person that wants Cal to succeed. Utha left that position long ago and became a spurned lover who posts revenge porn out of a sick desire to injure. He has expressed hatred for Cal as an educational institution and as an athletic institution and taken cheap shots at coaches, especially Wilcox, at every opportunity. He is a cancer. What he is doing is not useful or well intentioned. Criticize Cal - fine. Hate Cal - go to hell.

"Screw Cal". That is what you are defending. Not some constructive criticism. Have you ever, would you ever, utter that? Give yourself more credit than to join with that ass.

As far as I'm concerned he can go sit in a padded cell with VA, who, by the way, I fought against every second he was here including complaining loudly that he wasn't getting chased off when critical posters who were far more decent were.
Fairly certain that poster above is actually just a troll. He's never posted anything positive about Cal, and he was shockingly pro Dykes till the very end, which is pretty trollish behavior.
ColoradoBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
socaliganbear said:

ColoradoBear said:

socaliganbear said:

ColoradoBear said:

socaliganbear said:

socaltownie said:

My jaw is still on the floor about $30 million for a softball facility. I can not even begin to wrap my head around that.


And a volleyball facility. Y'all realize we spent 7M on FH?
Thought I saw somewhere that the sand volleyball facility was ~$5 million and the softball facility was ~$25 million.

Check out what Oregon did for their new softball stadium for a mere $17 million:

https://goducks.com/sports/2015/6/9/210141291.aspx

Field Hockey could have had a serviceable field for a lot less than $7 million if the campus had planned better. Plus a good amount of the $7 million was for FH expenses not that were directly in the cost of rebuilding Underhill.



Think Oregon's costs would be higher if they'd built it 6 years after they did? Or if they'd built it on a fault line in a canyon? Or if they'd built it in the Bay Area (with all it entails) and not in Eugene?
All true, but I bet they could also have built something serviceable for $5 million and still have it be better than evans diamond (which is the equivalent men's facility to softball).


I doubt that's how you prove equitable investment in facilities. Probably more along the lines of, how do your current investments in capital projects compare for men and women? Bare bones on both sides or just women? I highly doubt t it's a tit for tat with a men's counter part. Otherwise we'd prob leave beach volley as is.
I will say there are quite a number of cases, mostly in high schools, where baseball vs softball facilities are compared to establish what is equitable. Most schools have paired sports which use the same facility, but baseball and softball are different which allows them to be compared.

Equitable doesn't mean spending has to be equal - even the NCAA says so on their site.
http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/inclusion/title-ix-frequently-asked-questions#exclude

They do say that "benefits" and "treatment" must be equal. Like same access to facilities, facilities that are of competition grade, same access to locker rooms, restrooms, same quality equipment, etc.

So comparing to baseball is definitely valid IMO, and establishes what is unequitable about Cal softball's current field. Locker rooms: needed. Permanent lights: needed. Upgraded Restrooms: needed. Expanded seating to meet NCAA requirements: needed. Improved Batting cages: needed.

I know that all adds cost, but if one looks at Evans, it's simply seats on a small hill with very little improvements. If the Field Hockey facility at Underhill was enough to fend off a Title IX suit (Cost was $5.5 million, and included some screw ups changing the structure from having a crown to no crown), I'm not sure why it's necessary to spend so very much more on a softball field.

It's not tit for tat (we all know it would be impossible to spend anything close to the cost of CMS on women's sports facilities and of course it does matter what the expected fan attendance of the sport will be) , it's mostly about meeting minimum levels required to FULLY compete at the D1 - and I'm agreeing that Cal absolutely neglected FH and SB, and according to those who have been to the Sand Volleyball facilities, they were very poor and of the temp variety.

I'm also not sure elaborate grandstands are part of the equability equation - those are for the fans and not the players. We'll see how the new field looks - maybe we really are getting rudimentary facilities with contractors jacking the prices up 3x.

If construction coats are that big of an add on with 'UC being UC' I shudder think what the cost of a basketball facility will end up costing, and what a new TF/Soccer facility will cost.
socaliganbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ColoradoBear said:

socaliganbear said:

ColoradoBear said:

socaliganbear said:

ColoradoBear said:

socaliganbear said:

socaltownie said:

My jaw is still on the floor about $30 million for a softball facility. I can not even begin to wrap my head around that.


And a volleyball facility. Y'all realize we spent 7M on FH?
Thought I saw somewhere that the sand volleyball facility was ~$5 million and the softball facility was ~$25 million.

Check out what Oregon did for their new softball stadium for a mere $17 million:

https://goducks.com/sports/2015/6/9/210141291.aspx

Field Hockey could have had a serviceable field for a lot less than $7 million if the campus had planned better. Plus a good amount of the $7 million was for FH expenses not that were directly in the cost of rebuilding Underhill.



Think Oregon's costs would be higher if they'd built it 6 years after they did? Or if they'd built it on a fault line in a canyon? Or if they'd built it in the Bay Area (with all it entails) and not in Eugene?
All true, but I bet they could also have built something serviceable for $5 million and still have it be better than evans diamond (which is the equivalent men's facility to softball).


I doubt that's how you prove equitable investment in facilities. Probably more along the lines of, how do your current investments in capital projects compare for men and women? Bare bones on both sides or just women? I highly doubt t it's a tit for tat with a men's counter part. Otherwise we'd prob leave beach volley as is.
I will say there are quite a number of cases, mostly in high schools, where baseball vs softball facilities are compared to establish what is equitable. Most schools have paired sports which use the same facility, but baseball and softball are different which allows them to be compared.

Equitable doesn't mean spending has to be equal - even the NCAA says so on their site.
http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/inclusion/title-ix-frequently-asked-questions#exclude

They do say that "benefits" and "treatment" must be equal. Like same access to facilities, facilities that are of competition grade, same access to locker rooms, restrooms, same quality equipment, etc.

So comparing to baseball is definitely valid IMO, and establishes what is unequitable about Cal softball's current field. Locker rooms: needed. Permanent lights: needed. Upgraded Restrooms: needed. Expanded seating to meet NCAA requirements: needed. Improved Batting cages: needed.

I know that all adds cost, but if one looks at Evans, it's simply seats on a small hill with very little improvements. If the Field Hockey facility at Underhill was enough to fend off a Title IX suit (Cost was $5.5 million, and included some screw ups changing the structure from having a crown to no crown), I'm not sure why it's necessary to spend so very much more on a softball field.

It's not tit for tat (we all know it would be impossible to spend anything close to the cost of CMS on women's sports facilities and of course it does matter what the expected fan attendance of the sport will be) , it's mostly about meeting minimum levels required to FULLY compete at the D1 - and I'm agreeing that Cal absolutely neglected FH and SB, and according to those who have been to the Sand Volleyball facilities, they were very poor and of the temp variety.

I'm also not sure elaborate grandstands are part of the equability equation - those are for the fans and not the players. We'll see how the new field looks - maybe we really are getting rudimentary facilities with contractors jacking the prices up 3x.

If construction coats are that big of an add on with 'UC being UC' I shudder think what the cost of a basketball facility will end up costing, and what a new TF/Soccer facility will cost.

If Cal could've gone cheaper for softball, I'm sure it would have.
HoopDreams
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ColoradoBear said:

socaliganbear said:

ColoradoBear said:

socaliganbear said:

ColoradoBear said:

socaliganbear said:

socaltownie said:

My jaw is still on the floor about $30 million for a softball facility. I can not even begin to wrap my head around that.


And a volleyball facility. Y'all realize we spent 7M on FH?
Thought I saw somewhere that the sand volleyball facility was ~$5 million and the softball facility was ~$25 million.

Check out what Oregon did for their new softball stadium for a mere $17 million:

https://goducks.com/sports/2015/6/9/210141291.aspx

Field Hockey could have had a serviceable field for a lot less than $7 million if the campus had planned better. Plus a good amount of the $7 million was for FH expenses not that were directly in the cost of rebuilding Underhill.



Think Oregon's costs would be higher if they'd built it 6 years after they did? Or if they'd built it on a fault line in a canyon? Or if they'd built it in the Bay Area (with all it entails) and not in Eugene?
All true, but I bet they could also have built something serviceable for $5 million and still have it be better than evans diamond (which is the equivalent men's facility to softball).


I doubt that's how you prove equitable investment in facilities. Probably more along the lines of, how do your current investments in capital projects compare for men and women? Bare bones on both sides or just women? I highly doubt t it's a tit for tat with a men's counter part. Otherwise we'd prob leave beach volley as is.
I will say there are quite a number of cases, mostly in high schools, where baseball vs softball facilities are compared to establish what is equitable. Most schools have paired sports which use the same facility, but baseball and softball are different which allows them to be compared.

Equitable doesn't mean spending has to be equal - even the NCAA says so on their site.
http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/inclusion/title-ix-frequently-asked-questions#exclude

They do say that "benefits" and "treatment" must be equal. Like same access to facilities, facilities that are of competition grade, same access to locker rooms, restrooms, same quality equipment, etc.

So comparing to baseball is definitely valid IMO, and establishes what is unequitable about Cal softball's current field. Locker rooms: needed. Permanent lights: needed. Upgraded Restrooms: needed. Expanded seating to meet NCAA requirements: needed. Improved Batting cages: needed.

I know that all adds cost, but if one looks at Evans, it's simply seats on a small hill with very little improvements. If the Field Hockey facility at Underhill was enough to fend off a Title IX suit (Cost was $5.5 million, and included some screw ups changing the structure from having a crown to no crown), I'm not sure why it's necessary to spend so very much more on a softball field.

It's not tit for tat (we all know it would be impossible to spend anything close to the cost of CMS on women's sports facilities and of course it does matter what the expected fan attendance of the sport will be) , it's mostly about meeting minimum levels required to FULLY compete at the D1 - and I'm agreeing that Cal absolutely neglected FH and SB, and according to those who have been to the Sand Volleyball facilities, they were very poor and of the temp variety.

I'm also not sure elaborate grandstands are part of the equability equation - those are for the fans and not the players. We'll see how the new field looks - maybe we really are getting rudimentary facilities with contractors jacking the prices up 3x.

If construction coats are that big of an add on with 'UC being UC' I shudder think what the cost of a basketball facility will end up costing, and what a new TF/Soccer facility will cost.

good post.

agree locker rooms, improved batting cages, etc needed.

my objection was that it needed 5000 seats because Cal's baseball field has 5000 seats, or because it's the minimum to meet NCAA requirements. That number of seats would just be a waste of money (I've never seen all the baseball seats taken)

seems like most sports facilities are larger than needed (football, basketball, baseball, track/soccer). Simply matching seats that are never/rarely used by the mens teams to meet the Title IX requirements means that Title IX is not practical, and that blinding following the guidelines is a waste of money.

My guess, is Title IX is not that bad, and I am just mis-understanding the requirements.
stu
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HoopDreams said:

my objection was that it needed 5000 seats because Cal's baseball field has 5000 seats, or because it's the minimum to meet NCAA requirements. That number of seats would just be a waste of money (I've never seen all the baseball seats taken)

What would it cost to remove some of the baseball seats? Would that allow us to build a softball facility with fewer than 5000 seats?
BearGoggles
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Regarding construction costs, I'm not an expert on prevailing wage or government contracting, but at least theoretically a truly private project is not subject to prevailing wage, etc.

For example, donors (Goldmans?) could privately acquire and build a facility then donate it after construction. If costs are truly 2x private (which I absolutely believe), then all options need to be considered.

Yogi Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OaktownBear said:


As far as I'm concerned he can go sit in a padded cell with VA, who, by the way, I fought against every second he was here including complaining loudly that he wasn't getting chased off when critical posters who were far more decent were.
Hmmmm
Yogi Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ColoradoBear said:


I'm also not sure elaborate grandstands are part of the equability equation - those are for the fans and not the players. We'll see how the new field looks - maybe we really are getting rudimentary facilities with contractors jacking the prices up 3x.

I would spend enough to be able to qualify to host a softball playoff and no more. If softball fans want something fancier, they can open their pocketbooks.
UrsaMajor
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The 5000 seat requirement has nothing to do with Evans; it has to do with being able to host a playoff. You can't follow Title IX and have men's sports hosting playoffs (if they make it) and not women's.

As for private construction. Most recent projects (Legends Aquatic Center, Lee Kaishing Building, Blum Center) were built by donor set up 501(c)(3)s and then either donated to the campus or leased to the campus. This avoids some of the problems with state managed construction. Don't know if this is happening with Softball/Sand Volleyball.
ColoradoBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
stu said:

HoopDreams said:

my objection was that it needed 5000 seats because Cal's baseball field has 5000 seats, or because it's the minimum to meet NCAA requirements. That number of seats would just be a waste of money (I've never seen all the baseball seats taken)

What would it cost to remove some of the baseball seats? Would that allow us to build a softball facility with fewer than 5000 seats?

Many, many schools have softball stadiums that are far smaller and cheaper than their baseball stadiums and still comply with Title IX.

BTW, UCLA hosted a Softball Regional this year with a 1300 capacity field and UW hosted with a 1500 capacity field.

Both stadiums look a cut above our current field, but are nowhere near as extravagant as Oregon's new 2500 capacity softball field.
HoopDreams
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ColoradoBear said:

stu said:

HoopDreams said:

my objection was that it needed 5000 seats because Cal's baseball field has 5000 seats, or because it's the minimum to meet NCAA requirements. That number of seats would just be a waste of money (I've never seen all the baseball seats taken)

What would it cost to remove some of the baseball seats? Would that allow us to build a softball facility with fewer than 5000 seats?

Many, many schools have softball stadiums that are far smaller and cheaper than their baseball stadiums and still comply with Title IX.

BTW, UCLA hosted a Softball Regional this year with a 1300 capacity field and UW hosted with a 1500 capacity field.

Both stadiums look a cut above our current field, but are nowhere near as extravagant as Oregon's new 2500 capacity softball field.

so will the new SB stadium have 1300 or 1500 seats to meet NCAA requirements, or will it have 5000?
if more than 1500, then what is the purpose?
is there a written rule about NCAA requirements somewhere? (I went to NCAA site and couldn't find it)

I'm confused. What makes the footprint so much bigger that we need to flip the field? I don't see a lot of extra space at the current location, but I would think a larger bathroom won't take up that much more space than the current ones, and the entire site is not that large, so I think the locker room could be placed anywhere on the property.

philbert
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Where is the 5000 number coming from? This cut and paste is from: (apologies for the formatting)

http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2018DIWSB_PreChamps_Manual_20180222.pdf

PROSPECTIVE HOSTS
Host bid information and deadlines will be included in NCAAconnect in the coming months. The list below provides facility
requirements for softball championship hosts.
1.
Field dimensions: The distance of the outfield fences shall not exceed 235 feet. Outfield fences shall be a minimum of
190 feet in left and right fields (200 preferred). If a portable fence is used, it must be placed at a distance of 200 feet in
left and right fields, and 220 feet in center field. All portable fencing must be secured so as to prevent balls from rolling
under. The outfield fence is required to be a minimum of four feet but highly recommended to be a minimum of six feet.
Please see the 2018 and 2019 NCAA Softball Rules Book for future requirements.
2.
Backstop, sideline and outfield fences must enclose the playing field.
3.
The infield must be skinned; the outfield must be natural grass or grass-like synthetic surfaces.
4.
There must be a minimum of 25 feet and a maximum of 30 feet from home plate to the backstop.
5.
The facility must be enclosed in order to charge admission, with minimum seating capacity of 500 unobstructed-view seats.
6.
Concessions and an athletic training facility must be available on site. If permanent facilities are not available, tents may
be used to meet this requirement.
7.
Restroom facilities must be available, readily accessible and reserved exclusively for student-athletes and team
personnel during the course of the game (e.g., permanent restrooms). Adequate restrooms at the facility also must be
made available for the spectators. Permanent restrooms are preferred; however, portable are acceptable if this is the
only option for private and team-use-only facilities.
8.
An electronic scoreboard, public address system (including backup, if possible).
9.
A warm-up area must be provided for the two non-playing teams. Minimally, designated restricted areas for throwing and
stretching only must be provided to teams in the immediate proximity to the playing field.
10.
On-site parking must be provided for teams, tournament personnel and umpires.
11.
A covered interview area must be provided separate from spectator and hospitality areas.
12.
A tarp must be available for inclement weather.
13.
Dugouts must be covered and enclosed from spectators.
14.
A minimum of six phone lines and internet access must be available for use at press row (radio, internet, phone, fax).
15.
Press box: Institutions are required to have minimally a three-sided, covered press box with internet access and telephone.
16.
Two separate bullpen areas of comparable composition to the competition field (dirt is preferred) and distance from
dugouts must be provided. Bullpens must be separated from the spectator access area. Dirt bullpens are required at
the Women's College World Series.
17.
A full complement of grounds crew personnel must be on site at all times during practice and competition.
18.
Umpire facilities: A private dressing area (to accommodate both males and females) must be provided. Portable locker
rooms, recreation vehicles, etc., may be used; however, a tent does not fulfill this requirement.
19.
In order to host preliminary rounds, a lighted facility is required. (Minimum lighting requirement for television is 125
footcandles).
20.
Hosts must provide, in the participant manual, a list of equipment available to all teams (i.e., screens, pitching machines,
etc.) and a list of indoor facilities.
21.
Videotaping. All team camera locations will be located in the center field area and be unmanned. The site representative
or a designee will check them periodically to ensure they are operational. The host will provide three-foot-high platforms
in both right- and left-center fields approximately 20 feet from center field. Teams that do not comply with these policies
will forfeit all video footage. (
See camera protocol on page 31 for specifications
.)


socaliganbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Lmfao.
SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
UrsaMajor and OaktownBear,

I don't concur with the description that the goal of the University is to educate students. With all due respect, I think that view is exclusionary. It doesn't look far into the future and it fails to recognize the value of intercollegiate sports and intramural sports.

The first goal of a university is to continue the education of the students who want more education, can qualify for it, and can afford to pay for it. It is to train the state's future educators, professionals, and leaders. It is to foster the development of the mind and the body, the intelligence, the emotions, and the morals or ethics of the students.

Sports are a vehicle for teaching the value of competition essential to society, capitalist or socialist, and means to harness the innate aggression of youth into training one's mind and body to compete at a high level. In team sports, a further objective is to teach cooperation with other athletes to compete as a team, complementing each other, to achieve success. Sports teach competition played within rules, and the teaching of ethics in the form of sportsmanship. Nowhere in the classroom can all of this be learned as well as on the athletic field, IMO. Sports are an essential factor in educating a sizeable percentage of students, whether it is intercollegiate competition, intramurals, or even as a student fan. It also teaches hygiene and physical activity, a healthy respect for keeping in shape for the rest of the student's life as a citizen.

The UC Administration has other goals as well. One goal has been to meet the requirements of Title IX, and finding a way to pay for the huge financial burden this implies. One way is to invest in football and basketball to increase adult attendance, which has professionalized some aspects of sport, but the revenue can be used to pay for some of the minor sports now required by Title IX. Another goal of UC is the same as all liberal government institutions and that is to grow and get more control over lives. This requires hiring of more employees, more bureaucrats, more administrators, and the construction of more buildings to house the burgeoning campus. The administration tries to induce more and more out of state and out of country students to come to Cal, because they pay much higher fees, taking the places of what could have been California resident students. The administration still looks for ways to use race and gender as criteria so they can educate more of these students, even though they may not be qualified academically, taking up spaces that might have gone to qualified students.

The campus is in an urban setting, and is fast running out of buildable space. At some point, the state will have to make some harder choices about who to admit as a student. Right now, they only make compromises and whittle down the field some. UCB has long emphasized their graduate programs over the undergraduate programs. 50 years ago, when I attended Cal as an undergrad and in the following years when I joined the UC Staff doing research and advising graduate students, I felt that Cal could have done much better job educating undergraduates, especially the first two years. I remember classes with 200-800 students, with all the distractions, listening to a prof lecture, and getting next to nothing out of it. I had only one or two classes a semester that were as small as 45 students. Most classes taught by TAs. In the upper division, classes were smaller, perhaps 60 students on average, which was a little better. I can say I learned very little at Cal that I used in my profession. It did teach me to think better, perhaps, but that was it. Even in those days, there was curricula that was of no use to the student as an adult, and today even more so, and the administration seeks to push all sorts of liberal agenda, at the expense of courses that are crucial to succeeding as an adult in a competitive society.

Because there is little room to expand the campus to meet demand, UC may have to make some hard choices. If the state wants more of its residents to be educated, then perhaps out of state students will have to be reduced. One thing I think should get consideration is to split the campus in two. Make it an undergraduate university only in Berkeley, and move the graduate schools to another UC campus in a rural area that has more room to expand. This way you could leave the sports facilities in place. Or vice-versa, make UCB a graduate school, and move the undergraduate school to another UC campus. Either solution is expensive, but something major like that will have to be done. Right now, demolishing Edwards Field and replacing it with classrooms or offices is just a stop-gap solution, another compromise, which postpones fixing the problem. to come.

Society also needs to re-evaluate its priorities. The push to get every student a college education, let alone get them a free one, needs to be carefully scrutinized. We have a system now where there are almost no trade schools. As a result, we do not have enough workers in the trades. And the result of that is we have had a flood of illegal aliens coming here to do those jobs or learn to do them. 20 years ago, I hired a few of these men and women to help my parents maintain their home. I used to do all that work myself, but I had become too old to do so. I taught these workers how to use many hand tools and power tools. Today they all have fine full time jobs as skilled carpenters and plumbers. There are many students who have no interest in college, or are not suited for it, so why not reestablish our trade schools and attract those who have no interest in college?
Today the choice for these students are go to a JC, stay at home with their parents, look for a menial job, or end up on the streets, literally.

The view of tearing down Edwards and replacing it with classrooms or offices will help the situation for a few years, but soon the problem will arise again. A few years ago, they came for the baseball diamond, this year they are coming to take away Edwards. What will you or your children do when the UC Admin comes for your swimming team's facilities, or when they come for our beloved basketball program and Haas Pavilion? It could happen.







socaliganbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I actually hope eventually they do come for Evans.
BearGoggles
How long do you want to ignore this user?
UrsaMajor said:

The 5000 seat requirement has nothing to do with Evans; it has to do with being able to host a playoff. You can't follow Title IX and have men's sports hosting playoffs (if they make it) and not women's.

As for private construction. Most recent projects (Legends Aquatic Center, Lee Kaishing Building, Blum Center) were built by donor set up 501(c)(3)s and then either donated to the campus or leased to the campus. This avoids some of the problems with state managed construction. Don't know if this is happening with Softball/Sand Volleyball.

Thanks Ursa. I'm guessing it is not happening with softball/beach volleyball because there are no donors to fund the projects. As yogi posted elsewhere, unfortunately the non-revenue womens' sports have not had much success fundraising - probably in part because they know they can't be eliminated.
HoopDreams
How long do you want to ignore this user?
philbert said:

Where is the 5000 number coming from? This cut and paste is from: (apologies for the formatting)

http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2018DIWSB_PreChamps_Manual_20180222.pdf

PROSPECTIVE HOSTS
Host bid information and deadlines will be included in NCAAconnect in the coming months. The list below provides facility
requirements for softball championship hosts.
1.
Field dimensions: The distance of the outfield fences shall not exceed 235 feet. Outfield fences shall be a minimum of
190 feet in left and right fields (200 preferred). If a portable fence is used, it must be placed at a distance of 200 feet in
left and right fields, and 220 feet in center field. All portable fencing must be secured so as to prevent balls from rolling
under. The outfield fence is required to be a minimum of four feet but highly recommended to be a minimum of six feet.
Please see the 2018 and 2019 NCAA Softball Rules Book for future requirements.
2.
Backstop, sideline and outfield fences must enclose the playing field.
3.
The infield must be skinned; the outfield must be natural grass or grass-like synthetic surfaces.
4.
There must be a minimum of 25 feet and a maximum of 30 feet from home plate to the backstop.
5.
The facility must be enclosed in order to charge admission, with minimum seating capacity of 500 unobstructed-view seats.
6.
Concessions and an athletic training facility must be available on site. If permanent facilities are not available, tents may
be used to meet this requirement.
7.
Restroom facilities must be available, readily accessible and reserved exclusively for student-athletes and team
personnel during the course of the game (e.g., permanent restrooms). Adequate restrooms at the facility also must be
made available for the spectators. Permanent restrooms are preferred; however, portable are acceptable if this is the
only option for private and team-use-only facilities.
8.
An electronic scoreboard, public address system (including backup, if possible).
9.
A warm-up area must be provided for the two non-playing teams. Minimally, designated restricted areas for throwing and
stretching only must be provided to teams in the immediate proximity to the playing field.
10.
On-site parking must be provided for teams, tournament personnel and umpires.
11.
A covered interview area must be provided separate from spectator and hospitality areas.
12.
A tarp must be available for inclement weather.
13.
Dugouts must be covered and enclosed from spectators.
14.
A minimum of six phone lines and internet access must be available for use at press row (radio, internet, phone, fax).
15.
Press box: Institutions are required to have minimally a three-sided, covered press box with internet access and telephone.
16.
Two separate bullpen areas of comparable composition to the competition field (dirt is preferred) and distance from
dugouts must be provided. Bullpens must be separated from the spectator access area. Dirt bullpens are required at
the Women's College World Series.
17.
A full complement of grounds crew personnel must be on site at all times during practice and competition.
18.
Umpire facilities: A private dressing area (to accommodate both males and females) must be provided. Portable locker
rooms, recreation vehicles, etc., may be used; however, a tent does not fulfill this requirement.
19.
In order to host preliminary rounds, a lighted facility is required. (Minimum lighting requirement for television is 125
footcandles).
20.
Hosts must provide, in the participant manual, a list of equipment available to all teams (i.e., screens, pitching machines,
etc.) and a list of indoor facilities.
21.
Videotaping. All team camera locations will be located in the center field area and be unmanned. The site representative
or a designee will check them periodically to ensure they are operational. The host will provide three-foot-high platforms
in both right- and left-center fields approximately 20 feet from center field. Teams that do not comply with these policies
will forfeit all video footage. (
See camera protocol on page 31 for specifications
.)
thanks for the info and link. I tried to find it on the ncaa site, but couldn't.

but I couldn't find any reference to 5000 seats. The only requirement I saw in the doc was:

[ol]
"minimum seating capacity of 500 unobstructed-view seats"[/ol]
Again, maybe I'm mis-understanding something. If the NCAA does not require 5000 seats, then why do we need to build 5000 seats?

Or am I mis-understanding the plan, are we are NOT building 5000 seats?

philbert
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I don't know where the 5000 number came from in the first place. I didn't see it in Christ's email and it wasn't in the Comicle article.
socaliganbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
philbert said:

I don't know where the 5000 number came from in the first place. I didn't see it in Christ's email and it wasn't in the Comicle article.
No clue where that started. But it highly doubt we're building some palace.
UrsaMajor
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SFCityBear said:

UrsaMajor and OaktownBear,

I don't concur with the description that the goal of the University is to educate students. With all due respect, I think that view is exclusionary. It doesn't look far into the future and it fails to recognize the value of intercollegiate sports and intramural sports.

The first goal of a university is to continue the education of the students who want more education, can qualify for it, and can afford to pay for it. It is to train the state's future educators, professionals, and leaders. It is to foster the development of the mind and the body, the intelligence, the emotions, and the morals or ethics of the students.

Sports are a vehicle for teaching the value of competition essential to society, capitalist or socialist, and means to harness the innate aggression of youth into training one's mind and body to compete at a high level. In team sports, a further objective is to teach cooperation with other athletes to compete as a team, complementing each other, to achieve success. Sports teach competition played within rules, and the teaching of ethics in the form of sportsmanship. Nowhere in the classroom can all of this be learned as well as on the athletic field, IMO. Sports are an essential factor in educating a sizeable percentage of students, whether it is intercollegiate competition, intramurals, or even as a student fan. It also teaches hygiene and physical activity, a healthy respect for keeping in shape for the rest of the student's life as a citizen.

The UC Administration has other goals as well. One goal has been to meet the requirements of Title IX, and finding a way to pay for the huge financial burden this implies. One way is to invest in football and basketball to increase adult attendance, which has professionalized some aspects of sport, but the revenue can be used to pay for some of the minor sports now required by Title IX. Another goal of UC is the same as all liberal government institutions and that is to grow and get more control over lives. This requires hiring of more employees, more bureaucrats, more administrators, and the construction of more buildings to house the burgeoning campus. The administration tries to induce more and more out of state and out of country students to come to Cal, because they pay much higher fees, taking the places of what could have been California resident students. The administration still looks for ways to use race and gender as criteria so they can educate more of these students, even though they may not be qualified academically, taking up spaces that might have gone to qualified students.

The campus is in an urban setting, and is fast running out of buildable space. At some point, the state will have to make some harder choices about who to admit as a student. Right now, they only make compromises and whittle down the field some. UCB has long emphasized their graduate programs over the undergraduate programs. 50 years ago, when I attended Cal as an undergrad and in the following years when I joined the UC Staff doing research and advising graduate students, I felt that Cal could have done much better job educating undergraduates, especially the first two years. I remember classes with 200-800 students, with all the distractions, listening to a prof lecture, and getting next to nothing out of it. I had only one or two classes a semester that were as small as 45 students. Most classes taught by TAs. In the upper division, classes were smaller, perhaps 60 students on average, which was a little better. I can say I learned very little at Cal that I used in my profession. It did teach me to think better, perhaps, but that was it. Even in those days, there was curricula that was of no use to the student as an adult, and today even more so, and the administration seeks to push all sorts of liberal agenda, at the expense of courses that are crucial to succeeding as an adult in a competitive society.

Because there is little room to expand the campus to meet demand, UC may have to make some hard choices. If the state wants more of its residents to be educated, then perhaps out of state students will have to be reduced. One thing I think should get consideration is to split the campus in two. Make it an undergraduate university only in Berkeley, and move the graduate schools to another UC campus in a rural area that has more room to expand. This way you could leave the sports facilities in place. Or vice-versa, make UCB a graduate school, and move the undergraduate school to another UC campus. Either solution is expensive, but something major like that will have to be done. Right now, demolishing Edwards Field and replacing it with classrooms or offices is just a stop-gap solution, another compromise, which postpones fixing the problem. to come.

Society also needs to re-evaluate its priorities. The push to get every student a college education, let alone get them a free one, needs to be carefully scrutinized. We have a system now where there are almost no trade schools. As a result, we do not have enough workers in the trades. And the result of that is we have had a flood of illegal aliens coming here to do those jobs or learn to do them. 20 years ago, I hired a few of these men and women to help my parents maintain their home. I used to do all that work myself, but I had become too old to do so. I taught these workers how to use many hand tools and power tools. Today they all have fine full time jobs as skilled carpenters and plumbers. There are many students who have no interest in college, or are not suited for it, so why not reestablish our trade schools and attract those who have no interest in college?
Today the choice for these students are go to a JC, stay at home with their parents, look for a menial job, or end up on the streets, literally.

The view of tearing down Edwards and replacing it with classrooms or offices will help the situation for a few years, but soon the problem will arise again. A few years ago, they came for the baseball diamond, this year they are coming to take away Edwards. What will you or your children do when the UC Admin comes for your swimming team's facilities, or when they come for our beloved basketball program and Haas Pavilion? It could happen.








SFCity:

As usual, a lot to ponder here. Let me make a few comments:

The first bold clause is not one everyone would agree with. It certainly used to be true that our society (or at least most of it) accepted that education was only for the upper class and that those who were lower on the economic scale were destined to remain there. This is no longer accepted dogma, and it is considered a good that poorer individuals have the opportunity to obtain an education so long as they have the intellectual capacity and the motivation to do so (that's why we have things called "scholarships.").

As for your second paragraph, this is something that I fully agree with and nothing in my original post about education being the primary goal of the university disagrees with that. This is why I am in total disagreement with faculty who argue that intercollegiate athletics are inconsistent with the goals of the university. (Of course, when football takes on an outsized role in a university such as at many SEC schools, it can be contrary to the other goals, but that is a totally different issue.)

As for your "political" paragraph, I will gloss over much of it as it contributes little to the discussion (the university trying to gain control over your life is silly, IMO0. I will note, however, that Cal is doing nothing to increase female students. Do you really believe that women "may not be qualified???"

The dilemma about in state/out of state students is a difficult one. The state continues to cut the funding for the university and demand that it do more. It is true that out of state and foreign students pay more and this is a crucial part of the university's budget, but the alternative is to have even fewer resources for the mission. The demand for the university is going to continue to grow no matter what, and resources need to be found. Perhaps one solution is to ban immigration to California from other states (just kidding, I know it can't be done).

Your comments in the 2nd bolded statement are interesting and deserve a response. I agree that not everyone should be directed toward college (I don't see why a "free" education for those who can't afford it is such a terrible thing. Do you hold that "free" public schools shouldn't exist either?), and I also agree that other kinds of education should be provided (technical schools, trade schools, etc.). However, all signs point to the fact that the need for trades is going to be diminishing over time. There have been some excellent studies of the impact of AI on these fields and it appears that the kinds of things taught at universities will increasingly be needed in order to be employed at a level above McDonald's. This is a conundrum that we need to solve as a society.

Interesting ideas regarding the longterm--i.e., separate undergraduate and graduate campuses. As a practical matter, the more urban should probably house the graduate schools, since access to urban populations and other institutions (hospitals, medical schools, high tech, etc.) may be necessary for research. A major problem with this, however, is that the best professors will all be at the graduate school, since that's where you do research (and have graduate assistants). This means the undergraduates have no access to research opportunities.

I'm not sure I accept your dire predictions. I believe that currently Edwards is a special case. It needs to come down (or at least 1/2 of it needs to come down) because it is so seismically unsafe that it can't be used. The question, then, is what to do with the footprint. The suggestion of keeping 1/2 of it and building on the other half is an intriguing one. As for the thought of building on the Evans site--that was only IF baseball were eliminated and the field then would no longer be used.

Anyway, interesting food for thought here
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SFCityBear said:

UrsaMajor and OaktownBear,

I don't concur with the description that the goal of the University is to educate students. With all due respect, I think that view is exclusionary. It doesn't look far into the future and it fails to recognize the value of intercollegiate sports and intramural sports.

The first goal of a university is to continue the education of the students who want more education, can qualify for it, and can afford to pay for it. It is to train the state's future educators, professionals, and leaders. It is to foster the development of the mind and the body, the intelligence, the emotions, and the morals or ethics of the students.

Sports are a vehicle for teaching the value of competition essential to society, capitalist or socialist, and means to harness the innate aggression of youth into training one's mind and body to compete at a high level. In team sports, a further objective is to teach cooperation with other athletes to compete as a team, complementing each other, to achieve success. Sports teach competition played within rules, and the teaching of ethics in the form of sportsmanship. Nowhere in the classroom can all of this be learned as well as on the athletic field, IMO. Sports are an essential factor in educating a sizeable percentage of students, whether it is intercollegiate competition, intramurals, or even as a student fan. It also teaches hygiene and physical activity, a healthy respect for keeping in shape for the rest of the student's life as a citizen.

The UC Administration has other goals as well. One goal has been to meet the requirements of Title IX, and finding a way to pay for the huge financial burden this implies. One way is to invest in football and basketball to increase adult attendance, which has professionalized some aspects of sport, but the revenue can be used to pay for some of the minor sports now required by Title IX. Another goal of UC is the same as all liberal government institutions and that is to grow and get more control over lives. This requires hiring of more employees, more bureaucrats, more administrators, and the construction of more buildings to house the burgeoning campus. The administration tries to induce more and more out of state and out of country students to come to Cal, because they pay much higher fees, taking the places of what could have been California resident students. The administration still looks for ways to use race and gender as criteria so they can educate more of these students, even though they may not be qualified academically, taking up spaces that might have gone to qualified students.

The campus is in an urban setting, and is fast running out of buildable space. At some point, the state will have to make some harder choices about who to admit as a student. Right now, they only make compromises and whittle down the field some. UCB has long emphasized their graduate programs over the undergraduate programs. 50 years ago, when I attended Cal as an undergrad and in the following years when I joined the UC Staff doing research and advising graduate students, I felt that Cal could have done much better job educating undergraduates, especially the first two years. I remember classes with 200-800 students, with all the distractions, listening to a prof lecture, and getting next to nothing out of it. I had only one or two classes a semester that were as small as 45 students. Most classes taught by TAs. In the upper division, classes were smaller, perhaps 60 students on average, which was a little better. I can say I learned very little at Cal that I used in my profession. It did teach me to think better, perhaps, but that was it. Even in those days, there was curricula that was of no use to the student as an adult, and today even more so, and the administration seeks to push all sorts of liberal agenda, at the expense of courses that are crucial to succeeding as an adult in a competitive society.

Because there is little room to expand the campus to meet demand, UC may have to make some hard choices. If the state wants more of its residents to be educated, then perhaps out of state students will have to be reduced. One thing I think should get consideration is to split the campus in two. Make it an undergraduate university only in Berkeley, and move the graduate schools to another UC campus in a rural area that has more room to expand. This way you could leave the sports facilities in place. Or vice-versa, make UCB a graduate school, and move the undergraduate school to another UC campus. Either solution is expensive, but something major like that will have to be done. Right now, demolishing Edwards Field and replacing it with classrooms or offices is just a stop-gap solution, another compromise, which postpones fixing the problem. to come.

Society also needs to re-evaluate its priorities. The push to get every student a college education, let alone get them a free one, needs to be carefully scrutinized. We have a system now where there are almost no trade schools. As a result, we do not have enough workers in the trades. And the result of that is we have had a flood of illegal aliens coming here to do those jobs or learn to do them. 20 years ago, I hired a few of these men and women to help my parents maintain their home. I used to do all that work myself, but I had become too old to do so. I taught these workers how to use many hand tools and power tools. Today they all have fine full time jobs as skilled carpenters and plumbers. There are many students who have no interest in college, or are not suited for it, so why not reestablish our trade schools and attract those who have no interest in college?
Today the choice for these students are go to a JC, stay at home with their parents, look for a menial job, or end up on the streets, literally.

The view of tearing down Edwards and replacing it with classrooms or offices will help the situation for a few years, but soon the problem will arise again. A few years ago, they came for the baseball diamond, this year they are coming to take away Edwards. What will you or your children do when the UC Admin comes for your swimming team's facilities, or when they come for our beloved basketball program and Haas Pavilion? It could happen.








Very interesting post. You won't find it on a USC site.

Two cents on trends in higher education.

US higher education has had essentially the same financial model for 150 years. Tuition, taxpayer funding, and donations/grants provide revenues. Most costs are fixed, with little flexibility in the short run, and those changes using involve changing personnel, which is hard to do at a state university. This model was successful for a long time, including a very favorable period from 1982 to 2007. Recently, however, the model has become increasingly challenged.

Over the three decades from 1980 to 2010 a growing proportion of high school graduates pursued a college education. Moreover, the number of international students studying in the US also grew. Given such favorable demographics, total postsecondary enrollment almost doubled from 1980 to 2007. Now there has been a shift and enrollment is down, mostly in JC's and for profits for reasons stated in the above post. Another change is the population of of potential college age students is dropping and is projected to then remain essentially flat until 2028. This would have to be made-up by either increasing demand for Cal versus other schools or foreign students or immigration changing demographics numbers (this really is a subset of foreign students). In any event, 85% of public schools are projecting declines in enrollment (Jrn. of Accounting Eduction study), while Cal is expanding.

Then there is continuing concerns about college affordability, demands on government resources, limits to philanthropy, and long-term debt further stress that traditional model. Cal does benefit from being cheaper than most of its peers, though with a small endowment next to most peers, it also can't compete well for many top students and faculty who are "purchased" by privates.

The net result of these financial forces when added to disruptive forces of technology is a significant strain on the traditional financial model. Within the next few decades, postsecondary institutions in the US will be driven to find significant new sources of revenues or new ways to significantly reduce expenditures to remain financially viable. Illinois, UofA and ASU have moved to internet degrees, on-line content and other innovative approaches, that don't require students sitting in expensive class rooms and dorms. Your correct Cal faces choices, In the long run, Cal faces some hard choice that are different than the choices being made today: which is how does Cal accomodate growth under the existing financial model with financial constraints? The problem is that is likely not the model Cal will be forced to follow in the future.
UrsaMajor
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It is interesting to note that while we have 18% out of state students (as of 2018), our top 2 non-UC peers, Michigan and Virginia both have 45-50% out of state students. They have adopted this as a funding model.

The changes you cite, Wife, are but the tip of the iceberg. A very interesting article was written by a Chinese scholar of AI who suggested that the economic changes that will be wrought by technology will be even more profound than we are imagining. Soon, for instance, physicians will no longer diagnose diseases--this will be done for the most part by computer algorithms. Jobs such as driving, etc. will disappear. The trades that SFCity refers to will be greatly reduced in that much manufacturing and construction will be automated. Our workforce is likely to be predominantly intellectual work and service work, requiring very different educational models.
BeachedBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ursa and WIAF:

Great input and comments for SFCITY, but I am going to assume that by TRADES, SFCITY did NOT mean drivers, baristas, construction labor, assembly line manufacturing and McDonald's employees. I'm pretty sure that he was referring to Plumbers, Electricians, Arborists and others with professional associations. Contrary to popular belief (but in agreement with most AI studies), these jobs are in high demand and will likely NOT be replaced by AI in the next 100 years. Manufacturing, many areas of medicine, driving, baristas ARE all very likely to be replaced by semi-intelligent robots. But most of the trades that require professional training, fine motor skills and onsite analysis will not.

To SFCITY: These trades are a great opportunity for young people and many do not require a 4-year degree. However, many people with university sheepskin DO go into these fields. Why? Better money, work conditions and an opportunity to be your own boss. Now the universities and the guidance counselors may not want people to know that, but that is part of their racket. My children all went to Campolindo high school in Moraga. All they ever heard from counselors and soccer moms is that if you don't get a college degree, you are worthless ****e.

I own a 'TRADE' business. My employees are skilled specialists that can make $40-$60K at age 18. More experienced employees make six figures. My General Manager will probably make $250K per year at age 30. My son will probably buy my business from me and be worth about $5 Million at age 35. That's pretty good compared to high paying tech jobs. If you want to learn about academic issues, I suggest going to college. If you want to make money, learn about business, buy a house and become financially secure, I recommend at least a technical degree OR a TRADE.

Anyway, the TRADEs are still out there and there are many trade schools supporting them. To SFCITY"s point, at least at the High School level, most students are being directed to 4-year colleges without regard to their desires or aptitude. While I don't agree that it is a liberal plot to control lives, it is a shame.

OaktownBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
UrsaMajor said:

SFCityBear said:

UrsaMajor and OaktownBear,

I don't concur with the description that the goal of the University is to educate students. With all due respect, I think that view is exclusionary. It doesn't look far into the future and it fails to recognize the value of intercollegiate sports and intramural sports.

The first goal of a university is to continue the education of the students who want more education, can qualify for it, and can afford to pay for it. It is to train the state's future educators, professionals, and leaders. It is to foster the development of the mind and the body, the intelligence, the emotions, and the morals or ethics of the students.

Sports are a vehicle for teaching the value of competition essential to society, capitalist or socialist, and means to harness the innate aggression of youth into training one's mind and body to compete at a high level. In team sports, a further objective is to teach cooperation with other athletes to compete as a team, complementing each other, to achieve success. Sports teach competition played within rules, and the teaching of ethics in the form of sportsmanship. Nowhere in the classroom can all of this be learned as well as on the athletic field, IMO. Sports are an essential factor in educating a sizeable percentage of students, whether it is intercollegiate competition, intramurals, or even as a student fan. It also teaches hygiene and physical activity, a healthy respect for keeping in shape for the rest of the student's life as a citizen.

The UC Administration has other goals as well. One goal has been to meet the requirements of Title IX, and finding a way to pay for the huge financial burden this implies. One way is to invest in football and basketball to increase adult attendance, which has professionalized some aspects of sport, but the revenue can be used to pay for some of the minor sports now required by Title IX. Another goal of UC is the same as all liberal government institutions and that is to grow and get more control over lives. This requires hiring of more employees, more bureaucrats, more administrators, and the construction of more buildings to house the burgeoning campus. The administration tries to induce more and more out of state and out of country students to come to Cal, because they pay much higher fees, taking the places of what could have been California resident students. The administration still looks for ways to use race and gender as criteria so they can educate more of these students, even though they may not be qualified academically, taking up spaces that might have gone to qualified students.

The campus is in an urban setting, and is fast running out of buildable space. At some point, the state will have to make some harder choices about who to admit as a student. Right now, they only make compromises and whittle down the field some. UCB has long emphasized their graduate programs over the undergraduate programs. 50 years ago, when I attended Cal as an undergrad and in the following years when I joined the UC Staff doing research and advising graduate students, I felt that Cal could have done much better job educating undergraduates, especially the first two years. I remember classes with 200-800 students, with all the distractions, listening to a prof lecture, and getting next to nothing out of it. I had only one or two classes a semester that were as small as 45 students. Most classes taught by TAs. In the upper division, classes were smaller, perhaps 60 students on average, which was a little better. I can say I learned very little at Cal that I used in my profession. It did teach me to think better, perhaps, but that was it. Even in those days, there was curricula that was of no use to the student as an adult, and today even more so, and the administration seeks to push all sorts of liberal agenda, at the expense of courses that are crucial to succeeding as an adult in a competitive society.

Because there is little room to expand the campus to meet demand, UC may have to make some hard choices. If the state wants more of its residents to be educated, then perhaps out of state students will have to be reduced. One thing I think should get consideration is to split the campus in two. Make it an undergraduate university only in Berkeley, and move the graduate schools to another UC campus in a rural area that has more room to expand. This way you could leave the sports facilities in place. Or vice-versa, make UCB a graduate school, and move the undergraduate school to another UC campus. Either solution is expensive, but something major like that will have to be done. Right now, demolishing Edwards Field and replacing it with classrooms or offices is just a stop-gap solution, another compromise, which postpones fixing the problem. to come.

Society also needs to re-evaluate its priorities. The push to get every student a college education, let alone get them a free one, needs to be carefully scrutinized. We have a system now where there are almost no trade schools. As a result, we do not have enough workers in the trades. And the result of that is we have had a flood of illegal aliens coming here to do those jobs or learn to do them. 20 years ago, I hired a few of these men and women to help my parents maintain their home. I used to do all that work myself, but I had become too old to do so. I taught these workers how to use many hand tools and power tools. Today they all have fine full time jobs as skilled carpenters and plumbers. There are many students who have no interest in college, or are not suited for it, so why not reestablish our trade schools and attract those who have no interest in college?
Today the choice for these students are go to a JC, stay at home with their parents, look for a menial job, or end up on the streets, literally.

The view of tearing down Edwards and replacing it with classrooms or offices will help the situation for a few years, but soon the problem will arise again. A few years ago, they came for the baseball diamond, this year they are coming to take away Edwards. What will you or your children do when the UC Admin comes for your swimming team's facilities, or when they come for our beloved basketball program and Haas Pavilion? It could happen.








SFCity:

As usual, a lot to ponder here. Let me make a few comments:

The first bold clause is not one everyone would agree with. It certainly used to be true that our society (or at least most of it) accepted that education was only for the upper class and that those who were lower on the economic scale were destined to remain there. This is no longer accepted dogma, and it is considered a good that poorer individuals have the opportunity to obtain an education so long as they have the intellectual capacity and the motivation to do so (that's why we have things called "scholarships.").

As for your second paragraph, this is something that I fully agree with and nothing in my original post about education being the primary goal of the university disagrees with that. This is why I am in total disagreement with faculty who argue that intercollegiate athletics are inconsistent with the goals of the university. (Of course, when football takes on an outsized role in a university such as at many SEC schools, it can be contrary to the other goals, but that is a totally different issue.)

As for your "political" paragraph, I will gloss over much of it as it contributes little to the discussion (the university trying to gain control over your life is silly, IMO0. I will note, however, that Cal is doing nothing to increase female students. Do you really believe that women "may not be qualified???"

The dilemma about in state/out of state students is a difficult one. The state continues to cut the funding for the university and demand that it do more. It is true that out of state and foreign students pay more and this is a crucial part of the university's budget, but the alternative is to have even fewer resources for the mission. The demand for the university is going to continue to grow no matter what, and resources need to be found. Perhaps one solution is to ban immigration to California from other states (just kidding, I know it can't be done).

Your comments in the 2nd bolded statement are interesting and deserve a response. I agree that not everyone should be directed toward college (I don't see why a "free" education for those who can't afford it is such a terrible thing. Do you hold that "free" public schools shouldn't exist either?), and I also agree that other kinds of education should be provided (technical schools, trade schools, etc.). However, all signs point to the fact that the need for trades is going to be diminishing over time. There have been some excellent studies of the impact of AI on these fields and it appears that the kinds of things taught at universities will increasingly be needed in order to be employed at a level above McDonald's. This is a conundrum that we need to solve as a society.

Interesting ideas regarding the longterm--i.e., separate undergraduate and graduate campuses. As a practical matter, the more urban should probably house the graduate schools, since access to urban populations and other institutions (hospitals, medical schools, high tech, etc.) may be necessary for research. A major problem with this, however, is that the best professors will all be at the graduate school, since that's where you do research (and have graduate assistants). This means the undergraduates have no access to research opportunities.

I'm not sure I accept your dire predictions. I believe that currently Edwards is a special case. It needs to come down (or at least 1/2 of it needs to come down) because it is so seismically unsafe that it can't be used. The question, then, is what to do with the footprint. The suggestion of keeping 1/2 of it and building on the other half is an intriguing one. As for the thought of building on the Evans site--that was only IF baseball were eliminated and the field then would no longer be used.

Anyway, interesting food for thought here
I drastically disagree with SF's second paragraph. The goal of the UC system was very specifically to provide the education to everyone regardless of ability to pay. It is the whole point. Otherwise, why get into the business at all? There are private schools to do the job. Only providing a quality education to those who can afford to pay means cutting out a huge percentage of the naturally gifted people who can make our whole state more competitive.

I do not agree that "society" pushes to every student a college education. And certainly it hasn't been the trend to give them a free one. The market pushes students to get a college education. They want it because it has a high return on investment. And contrary to giving them a free education, we have moved from giving a virtually free education in SF's time to it costing $15,000/year now. That is market as well. Governments know that a college education is exceedingly valuable in the work marketplace and people will pay that much because it is still a good investment. To the extent it pushes people out who can't afford it, we are very much weakened in my opinion. I read a statistic a few years ago that a poor student with a A's in high school is less likely to get a college degree than a rich student with C's. That is a waste of an important resource. (say nothing to being an affront to the belief in equal opportunity).

SF's points about the university having to make hard choices are very interesting and probably true. But that is not today. If the choice is between separating into separate undergraduate and graduate campuses, or tearing down a track stadium, that is not a hard choice. Bye Bye track stadium. The choice may need to be made someday, but it will be made after Edwards is long gone and that land is used to mitigate the need for that choice.

I'm confused by the first paragraph. It is not exclusionary to say the primary role is to educate. It is fact. A comedy club's primary role is to put on comedy. Not poetry readings. Poetry readings are great. I can find those elsewhere. A comedy club does comedy. A university does education. There are many laudable things Cal could do and maybe should do, but not at the expense of its first goal education.

I agree entirely with SFCity's third paragraph. However, 1. How much of that is Cal's role vs. something that could be taught at an earlier age? 2. How much of that necessitates a track stadium? I believe that all those things have a secondary, but yes very important role at Cal. Track does not efficiently contribute to those goals. When I was there, Cal had a great health class aimed at Freshmen that taught all those things in SF's last sentence of that paragraph TO ANYONE WHO WANTED TO TAKE IT. Track doesn't do that. Cal had great intramurals FOR ANYONE WHO WANTS TO PARTICIPATE. Track doesn't do that. Cal had a great recreational sports facility for the entire student body. Cal has a PE department available to all that educates on sports and fitness TO ALL WHO WANT IT. Track doesn't do that. Cal has a football team and basketball team that makes money. Track doesn't. Cal has many sports programs more than virtually every other school. Many succeed at a high level. Track doesn't. I will add that I believe sports to be a field like any other and having a program that turns out the top in their field is a primary goal of the university, whether that field is physics or swimming. This was one thing I believed the Tedford lead football program did right. But track hasn't done this to a large extent in decades. Cal has teams that serve as a bonding opportunity, serves as a place to be a fan, and serve as an example of excellence. At Cal, track does not do this because the students do not care about it. Track at this point is only serving those who participate and honestly, based on their lack of success, not serving them very well. And further, can that program be served with a different facility? I would point out that there is a track literally a few blocks from Edwards that has enough stands to more than accommodate the current level of interest. If I were Cal, I would go to Berkeley High and offer to build and maintain a college level track facility at their current site in exchange for usage rights. If that necessitates taking out the football field let them use CMS.

As for trade schools, I'm all for giving people that opportunity, but as you say, trades are requiring more and more education to get by. Car mechanic is a tech job now. And yes, computers will revolutionize things, but what they will do is require even more education to get ahead. Not so much computers but data. Computers are not necessarily smart. In some ways it is their stupidity that makes them better at answering questions. If you have a job that can be done better 99% of the time by a network of computers with massive amounts of data, you are going to be toast. You need to be the one who maximizes that 1%. In other words, if you have a bachelor's in some science or business, etc. because that would get you a good job out of college, and you do the grunt work that someone with a graduate degree tells you to do, you are in for it. I disagree, by the way about doctors. The issue with computers is they give a great answer 99 times and then give a really stupid one. That is okay when Netflix is telling you what movie you might like. It is not okay when you give a wrong diagnosis. The computers will be an invaluable tool to doctors in diagnosis, but IMO it will be a long time before they push doctors out. A computer alone may do better than the average doctor, but a computer plus an average doctor will do better than each alone.
OaktownBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BeachedBear said:

Ursa and WIAF:

Great input and comments for SFCITY, but I am going to assume that by TRADES, SFCITY did NOT mean drivers, baristas, construction labor, assembly line manufacturing and McDonald's employees. I'm pretty sure that he was referring to Plumbers, Electricians, Arborists and others with professional associations. Contrary to popular belief (but in agreement with most AI studies), these jobs are in high demand and will likely NOT be replaced by AI in the next 100 years. Manufacturing, many areas of medicine, driving, baristas ARE all very likely to be replaced by semi-intelligent robots. But most of the trades that require professional training, fine motor skills and onsite analysis will not.

To SFCITY: These trades are a great opportunity for young people and many do not require a 4-year degree. However, many people with university sheepskin DO go into these fields. Why? Better money, work conditions and an opportunity to be your own boss. Now the universities and the guidance counselors may not want people to know that, but that is part of their racket. My children all went to Campolindo high school in Moraga. All they ever heard from counselors and soccer moms is that if you don't get a college degree, you are worthless ****e.

I own a 'TRADE' business. My employees are skilled specialists that can make $40-$60K at age 18. More experienced employees make six figures. My General Manager will probably make $250K per year at age 30. My son will probably buy my business from me and be worth about $5 Million at age 35. That's pretty good compared to high paying tech jobs. If you want to learn about academic issues, I suggest going to college. If you want to make money, learn about business, buy a house and become financially secure, I recommend at least a technical degree OR a TRADE.

Anyway, the TRADEs are still out there and there are many trade schools supporting them. To SFCITY"s point, at least at the High School level, most students are being directed to 4-year colleges without regard to their desires or aptitude. While I don't agree that it is a liberal plot to control lives, it is a shame.


I don't disagree at all about the value of being in a trade. However, statistically speaking, when jobs go down, college grads get jobs or keep jobs over non-college grads whether it is as a barista, an engineer or in a trade. We can argue whether that should be true, but it is. I happen to think that a college education (used well) PLUS training in a trade generally leads one to have an expanded skill set that on average gives you an advantage over those with only an education in a trade. A college degree may not be a requirement, and certainly there are people without one that are better than anyone who has one, but on average a college degree is an advantage. I would have to think that as trades become more and more complicated this will only increase.

I just don't agree with the dichotomy you set up in your third paragraph. I know several people who took their Cal degree and went into a trade - all successfully. My philosophy is don't do things you hate. You won't be good at it. That has been my advice to my own kids who are very much inclined toward college, but I've told them don't do things you hate to build a college resume. Do things you are passionate about and that will build your resume. I do not think a kid who has no interest in college should spend 4 years in hell to increase their earning potential as a plumber and I don't think they should be treated like shyte if they choose to forego college. However, I do think it is worth it to test their feelings and let them know what opportunities college may hold and that it may be different than they think. Personally, I enjoyed college far more than I thought I would. But if college isn't for you, don't do it.

But your statement that if you want to learn about academics, go to college, if you want to make money, learn a trade is just not statistically sound. Statistically college degrees increase earning potential that more than pays for the degree and opportunity cost. That probably won't be true in the individual case of your son, who I assume does not have much worry about job security and gets the benefit of your knowledge and the value you have built in a business (my guess is a college education would not have a good ROI for him at all). But for most people it is true
BeachedBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OaktownBear said:

BeachedBear said:

Ursa and WIAF:

Great input and comments for SFCITY, but I am going to assume that by TRADES, SFCITY did NOT mean drivers, baristas, construction labor, assembly line manufacturing and McDonald's employees. I'm pretty sure that he was referring to Plumbers, Electricians, Arborists and others with professional associations. Contrary to popular belief (but in agreement with most AI studies), these jobs are in high demand and will likely NOT be replaced by AI in the next 100 years. Manufacturing, many areas of medicine, driving, baristas ARE all very likely to be replaced by semi-intelligent robots. But most of the trades that require professional training, fine motor skills and onsite analysis will not.

To SFCITY: These trades are a great opportunity for young people and many do not require a 4-year degree. However, many people with university sheepskin DO go into these fields. Why? Better money, work conditions and an opportunity to be your own boss. Now the universities and the guidance counselors may not want people to know that, but that is part of their racket. My children all went to Campolindo high school in Moraga. All they ever heard from counselors and soccer moms is that if you don't get a college degree, you are worthless ****e.

I own a 'TRADE' business. My employees are skilled specialists that can make $40-$60K at age 18. More experienced employees make six figures. My General Manager will probably make $250K per year at age 30. My son will probably buy my business from me and be worth about $5 Million at age 35. That's pretty good compared to high paying tech jobs. If you want to learn about academic issues, I suggest going to college. If you want to make money, learn about business, buy a house and become financially secure, I recommend at least a technical degree OR a TRADE.

Anyway, the TRADEs are still out there and there are many trade schools supporting them. To SFCITY"s point, at least at the High School level, most students are being directed to 4-year colleges without regard to their desires or aptitude. While I don't agree that it is a liberal plot to control lives, it is a shame.


. . .

But your statement that if you want to learn about academics, go to college, if you want to make money, learn a trade is just not statistically sound. Statistically college degrees increase earning potential that more than pays for the degree and opportunity cost. That probably won't be true in the individual case of your son, who I assume does not have much worry about job security and gets the benefit of your knowledge and the value you have built in a business (my guess is a college education would not have a good ROI for him at all). But for most people it is true
OTB - you caught me doing something I generally despise! That is distilling a complex situation into a neat dichotomous soundbite. You are right! My intent was to differentiate non-degree employment and remind others that the TRADEs do offer rewards that many incorrectly assume are not there. There is a difference between a barista and plumber. Similarly between a truck driver and an arborist.

College offers may things that any job does not. Personally, I enjoyed the unique opportunity in today's world to be on my own, without too many economic pressures to produce and be in learning mode. FWIW, my son DID go to Cal Poly, enjoyed his time there, but hated the companies he worked at afterwards. Half my TRADE employees have degrees. Those that didn't go to college have technical training. My other business is 100% college degree types. However, I'll stand by my attempted point that not all non-degree employment options are the same, and the social pressure to attend college is just silly and not supported by the statistics you mention (which apply to the entire economy,not individuals).
HoopDreams
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BeachedBear said:

OaktownBear said:

BeachedBear said:

Ursa and WIAF:

Great input and comments for SFCITY, but I am going to assume that by TRADES, SFCITY did NOT mean drivers, baristas, construction labor, assembly line manufacturing and McDonald's employees. I'm pretty sure that he was referring to Plumbers, Electricians, Arborists and others with professional associations. Contrary to popular belief (but in agreement with most AI studies), these jobs are in high demand and will likely NOT be replaced by AI in the next 100 years. Manufacturing, many areas of medicine, driving, baristas ARE all very likely to be replaced by semi-intelligent robots. But most of the trades that require professional training, fine motor skills and onsite analysis will not.

To SFCITY: These trades are a great opportunity for young people and many do not require a 4-year degree. However, many people with university sheepskin DO go into these fields. Why? Better money, work conditions and an opportunity to be your own boss. Now the universities and the guidance counselors may not want people to know that, but that is part of their racket. My children all went to Campolindo high school in Moraga. All they ever heard from counselors and soccer moms is that if you don't get a college degree, you are worthless ****e.

I own a 'TRADE' business. My employees are skilled specialists that can make $40-$60K at age 18. More experienced employees make six figures. My General Manager will probably make $250K per year at age 30. My son will probably buy my business from me and be worth about $5 Million at age 35. That's pretty good compared to high paying tech jobs. If you want to learn about academic issues, I suggest going to college. If you want to make money, learn about business, buy a house and become financially secure, I recommend at least a technical degree OR a TRADE.

Anyway, the TRADEs are still out there and there are many trade schools supporting them. To SFCITY"s point, at least at the High School level, most students are being directed to 4-year colleges without regard to their desires or aptitude. While I don't agree that it is a liberal plot to control lives, it is a shame.


. . .

But your statement that if you want to learn about academics, go to college, if you want to make money, learn a trade is just not statistically sound. Statistically college degrees increase earning potential that more than pays for the degree and opportunity cost. That probably won't be true in the individual case of your son, who I assume does not have much worry about job security and gets the benefit of your knowledge and the value you have built in a business (my guess is a college education would not have a good ROI for him at all). But for most people it is true
OTB - you caught me doing something I generally despise! That is distilling a complex situation into a neat dichotomous soundbite. You are right! My intent was to differentiate non-degree employment and remind others that the TRADEs do offer rewards that many incorrectly assume are not there. There is a difference between a barista and plumber. Similarly between a truck driver and an arborist.

College offers may things that any job does not. Personally, I enjoyed the unique opportunity in today's world to be on my own, without too many economic pressures to produce and be in learning mode. FWIW, my son DID go to Cal Poly, enjoyed his time there, but hated the companies he worked at afterwards. Half my TRADE employees have degrees. Those that didn't go to college have technical training. My other business is 100% college degree types. However, I'll stand by my attempted point that not all non-degree employment options are the same, and the social pressure to attend college is just silly and not supported by the statistics you mention (which apply to the entire economy,not individuals).
one of the great professions is carpentry. one of my best friends never went to college, and went into carpentry. his skill amazes me, and he has had a long and successful career. his skills are very transferable to just about any place in the country, and can leave in big cities or small towns and make a living. He could also go out on his own as a contractor/developer. lots of flexibility and income.

I agree that we should have more trade schools. I agree that JCs fulfill some of that, but should be expanded in that area.

One thing however about carpentry. He got started in a special program, but he said had he not it is extremely difficult to get into the carpentry field unless you know someone.
HoopDreams
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HoopDreams said:

BeachedBear said:

OaktownBear said:

BeachedBear said:

Ursa and WIAF:

Great input and comments for SFCITY, but I am going to assume that by TRADES, SFCITY did NOT mean drivers, baristas, construction labor, assembly line manufacturing and McDonald's employees. I'm pretty sure that he was referring to Plumbers, Electricians, Arborists and others with professional associations. Contrary to popular belief (but in agreement with most AI studies), these jobs are in high demand and will likely NOT be replaced by AI in the next 100 years. Manufacturing, many areas of medicine, driving, baristas ARE all very likely to be replaced by semi-intelligent robots. But most of the trades that require professional training, fine motor skills and onsite analysis will not.

To SFCITY: These trades are a great opportunity for young people and many do not require a 4-year degree. However, many people with university sheepskin DO go into these fields. Why? Better money, work conditions and an opportunity to be your own boss. Now the universities and the guidance counselors may not want people to know that, but that is part of their racket. My children all went to Campolindo high school in Moraga. All they ever heard from counselors and soccer moms is that if you don't get a college degree, you are worthless ****e.

I own a 'TRADE' business. My employees are skilled specialists that can make $40-$60K at age 18. More experienced employees make six figures. My General Manager will probably make $250K per year at age 30. My son will probably buy my business from me and be worth about $5 Million at age 35. That's pretty good compared to high paying tech jobs. If you want to learn about academic issues, I suggest going to college. If you want to make money, learn about business, buy a house and become financially secure, I recommend at least a technical degree OR a TRADE.

Anyway, the TRADEs are still out there and there are many trade schools supporting them. To SFCITY"s point, at least at the High School level, most students are being directed to 4-year colleges without regard to their desires or aptitude. While I don't agree that it is a liberal plot to control lives, it is a shame.


. . .

But your statement that if you want to learn about academics, go to college, if you want to make money, learn a trade is just not statistically sound. Statistically college degrees increase earning potential that more than pays for the degree and opportunity cost. That probably won't be true in the individual case of your son, who I assume does not have much worry about job security and gets the benefit of your knowledge and the value you have built in a business (my guess is a college education would not have a good ROI for him at all). But for most people it is true
OTB - you caught me doing something I generally despise! That is distilling a complex situation into a neat dichotomous soundbite. You are right! My intent was to differentiate non-degree employment and remind others that the TRADEs do offer rewards that many incorrectly assume are not there. There is a difference between a barista and plumber. Similarly between a truck driver and an arborist.

College offers may things that any job does not. Personally, I enjoyed the unique opportunity in today's world to be on my own, without too many economic pressures to produce and be in learning mode. FWIW, my son DID go to Cal Poly, enjoyed his time there, but hated the companies he worked at afterwards. Half my TRADE employees have degrees. Those that didn't go to college have technical training. My other business is 100% college degree types. However, I'll stand by my attempted point that not all non-degree employment options are the same, and the social pressure to attend college is just silly and not supported by the statistics you mention (which apply to the entire economy,not individuals).
one of the great professions is carpentry. one of my best friends never went to college, and went into carpentry. his skill amazes me, and he has had a long and successful career. his skills are very transferable to just about any place in the country, and can live in big cities or small towns and make a living. He could also go out on his own as a contractor/developer. lots of flexibility and income.

I agree that we should have more trade schools. JCs fulfill some of that, but their trade programs should be expanded.

One thing however about carpentry. He got started in a special program, but he said had he not, it is extremely difficult to get into the carpentry field unless you have connections.
BeachedBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HoopDreams said:


one of the great professions is carpentry. one of my best friends never went to college, and went into carpentry. his skill amazes me, and he has had a long and successful career. his skills are very transferable to just about any place in the country, and can leave in big cities or small towns and make a living. He could also go out on his own as a contractor/developer. lots of flexibility and income.

I agree that we should have more trade schools. I agree that JCs fulfill some of that, but should be expanded in that area.

One thing however about carpentry. He got started in a special program, but he said had he not it is extremely difficult to get into the carpentry field unless you know someone.
Bringing this back to Cal, here comes one of my favorite anecdotes. A friend of mine at Cal during the early 80's was always picking up the beer tab and much more loose with his wallet than the rest of us starving students. One day I go over to 'his place' and it turns out he's living in North Berkeley in an empty house that is being remodeled. At first, I thought he was saving on rent by flopping there. Turns out, he came from a long line of carpenters and he was remodeling the house in his spare time. His father bought it for him his freshman year and they were 'flipping' it. He would move every year (sometimes twice) during his Cal years. I recall visiting him in Oakland, Alameda and Orinda. By the time we graduated, he had paid back his father for the first house and owned the place in Orinda outright.

A good friend of mine is a carpenter in the Santa Cruz area. He's redone the BeachedBear Lair for years and I know, from personal experience that he does pretty, pretty, pretty good.

One final note on small business/trades . . . With good business acumen, it can be very lucrative. Without it, it can be a slog. As OTB and Hoopdreams point out, the combination of some post secondary education in this area is often the difference. In my area, many of the trade businesses fail due to poor business practices, not poor work product.
socaliganbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HoopDreams said:

BeachedBear said:

OaktownBear said:

BeachedBear said:

Ursa and WIAF:

Great input and comments for SFCITY, but I am going to assume that by TRADES, SFCITY did NOT mean drivers, baristas, construction labor, assembly line manufacturing and McDonald's employees. I'm pretty sure that he was referring to Plumbers, Electricians, Arborists and others with professional associations. Contrary to popular belief (but in agreement with most AI studies), these jobs are in high demand and will likely NOT be replaced by AI in the next 100 years. Manufacturing, many areas of medicine, driving, baristas ARE all very likely to be replaced by semi-intelligent robots. But most of the trades that require professional training, fine motor skills and onsite analysis will not.

To SFCITY: These trades are a great opportunity for young people and many do not require a 4-year degree. However, many people with university sheepskin DO go into these fields. Why? Better money, work conditions and an opportunity to be your own boss. Now the universities and the guidance counselors may not want people to know that, but that is part of their racket. My children all went to Campolindo high school in Moraga. All they ever heard from counselors and soccer moms is that if you don't get a college degree, you are worthless ****e.

I own a 'TRADE' business. My employees are skilled specialists that can make $40-$60K at age 18. More experienced employees make six figures. My General Manager will probably make $250K per year at age 30. My son will probably buy my business from me and be worth about $5 Million at age 35. That's pretty good compared to high paying tech jobs. If you want to learn about academic issues, I suggest going to college. If you want to make money, learn about business, buy a house and become financially secure, I recommend at least a technical degree OR a TRADE.

Anyway, the TRADEs are still out there and there are many trade schools supporting them. To SFCITY"s point, at least at the High School level, most students are being directed to 4-year colleges without regard to their desires or aptitude. While I don't agree that it is a liberal plot to control lives, it is a shame.


. . .

But your statement that if you want to learn about academics, go to college, if you want to make money, learn a trade is just not statistically sound. Statistically college degrees increase earning potential that more than pays for the degree and opportunity cost. That probably won't be true in the individual case of your son, who I assume does not have much worry about job security and gets the benefit of your knowledge and the value you have built in a business (my guess is a college education would not have a good ROI for him at all). But for most people it is true
OTB - you caught me doing something I generally despise! That is distilling a complex situation into a neat dichotomous soundbite. You are right! My intent was to differentiate non-degree employment and remind others that the TRADEs do offer rewards that many incorrectly assume are not there. There is a difference between a barista and plumber. Similarly between a truck driver and an arborist.

College offers may things that any job does not. Personally, I enjoyed the unique opportunity in today's world to be on my own, without too many economic pressures to produce and be in learning mode. FWIW, my son DID go to Cal Poly, enjoyed his time there, but hated the companies he worked at afterwards. Half my TRADE employees have degrees. Those that didn't go to college have technical training. My other business is 100% college degree types. However, I'll stand by my attempted point that not all non-degree employment options are the same, and the social pressure to attend college is just silly and not supported by the statistics you mention (which apply to the entire economy,not individuals).
one of the great professions is carpentry. one of my best friends never went to college, and went into carpentry. his skill amazes me, and he has had a long and successful career. his skills are very transferable to just about any place in the country, and can leave in big cities or small towns and make a living. He could also go out on his own as a contractor/developer. lots of flexibility and income.

I agree that we should have more trade schools. I agree that JCs fulfill some of that, but should be expanded in that area.

One thing however about carpentry. He got started in a special program, but he said had he not it is extremely difficult to get into the carpentry field unless you know someone.
I just had a smoke break convo with an elevator mechanic here in NYC that said the same thing. Great pay, hard as **** to get into. Says jobs mostly stay within families.
Page 2 of 3
×
Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.